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.  :O
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 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
---------------------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.  :O
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 don’t 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!! :p

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 you’re 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 I’m 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 there’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t know about the others here but it seems obvious to me that our timothee is a young naive and pretentious student. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Agreed. He’s 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 don’t know about the others here but it seems obvious to me that our timothee is a young naive and pretentious student. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Agreed. He’s 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, that’s 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, that’s 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, you’re 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, you’re outta here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Too funny! >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wish we had rrf’s 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” temmenicki2’s 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 I’d like to suggest that you simply don’t understand Denyse.

You gave yourself away “whatever that means.”


< 4 >
bornagain77
11/07/2007
5:36 pm

temminicki2,

I’d watch your step, evolution is debated on this site daily, when Ms. O’Leary 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. I’m usually lurker, but I now have to say I can’t 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 can’t 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 they’re not going to have any positive contribution to UD I don’t 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. It’s 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 haven’t 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?”

I’ve said no such thing. In fact, you seem to be toeing the materialist line by denying the existence of angels and psi. I’d think someone interested in quantum mechanics and ID would know better than to lump entire fields into the rubbish bin because they don’t comply with orthodoxy, but that’s exactly what you’ve done.

I ask you to reevaluate your incorrect, materialistic premises before you go over what I’ve written. Only then can it become apparent that what I mean is not at all what you think it is, and that I’m 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 don’t 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 don’t 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, I’m 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 don’t think mere intransigence gets you kicked off. Witness getawitness’s continued presence. He never admits he’s wrong even when everyone (including him, I suspect) knows it. But at least he’s 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. That’s why they prescribed them all the time.

But then the bacteria kept developing resistance to even the toughest antibiotics. It seems to me we’re 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, there’s 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 I’m 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 Behe’s “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 Behe’s “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 haven’t 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... :p

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 doesn’t 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 there’s a reason. I’m using his full name because he’s black. I see using Hillary’s middle name too didn’t fool you any.

By the way, tard spelled backward isn’t 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 don’t like your tone, so unless you find another way in, you won’t 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 you’re 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

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave lifts the intelligence of fools to new levels

....but even by his own metric, that is still below an average IQ of a 17 yr old (av. age of SAT test candidate) with a 23 year old's brain (IQ approx 140-150).......when sat*  by a semi college educated marine dork who is actually .....23 years old.

*as in dT taking a 17 year old's SAT test at 23 years old, when he is ready for the knackery.

dT ur a reelly reely smrt guy ok?
Nobody apreeshates u rite?...rite?

Well everyone except Mr DR Doktor WMD ...don't worry dT he'll blow you fr reel wunday.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 06 2008,21:08

All else being equal, the simplest explanation is preferred: Put the smack-dab on DaveTard, and you're out.

< 50 >
DaveScot
04/06/2008
7:20 pm

Thom English is once again no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 09 2008,04:14

DaveTard in King James English through the loudspeaker in the ceiling. Hide your bush.

< 13 >
larrynormanfan
04/08/2008
3:34 pm

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.

larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds
Posted by: Louis on April 09 2008,08:59

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 09 2008,10:14)
DaveTard in King James English through the loudspeaker in the ceiling. Hide your bush.

< 13 >
larrynormanfan
04/08/2008
3:34 pm

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.

larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am beginning to think that DaveTard reads this thread and is banning people in mildly amusing ways to make things funnier for us all.

If so that means (horror of horrors) we owe DaveTard a pint. After all, look at all the joy he's brought us....

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on April 09 2008,09:02

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2008,08:59)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 09 2008,10:14)
DaveTard in King James English through the loudspeaker in the ceiling. Hide your bush.

< 13 >
larrynormanfan
04/08/2008
3:34 pm

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.

larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am beginning to think that DaveTard reads this thread and is banning people in mildly amusing ways to make things funnier for us all.

If so that means (horror of horrors) we owe DaveTard a pint. After all, look at all the joy he's brought us....

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but being DaveTard is all about being fatally flawed.  He could have made this a more memorable banning with a simple use of the Royal we:

thus:

larrynormanfan - We don’t like your tone. Thy name is history. -ds[/quote]
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 15 2008,20:06

< 14 >
leo stotch
04/15/2008
7:22 pm

"Do we need to know whether or not the mountains of Rushmore were designed or not in order to reach a design inference for the faces carved into them? No. Only the difference in specified complexity between the old and new patterns need be examined."

ID is so awesome. It is a science that does no lab or field work and relies on mathematical concepts that use no mathematical calculations. It reminds me of the Todd Snider song about the band that wouldn’t play a note.

Leo Stotch is no longer with us. -dt

(< 4' 33" > by John Cage also memorializes ID's research output.)

(ht carlsonjok)
Posted by: k.e.. on April 15 2008,20:41

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 15 2008,20:06)
< 14 >
leo stotch
04/15/2008
7:22 pm

"Do we need to know whether or not the mountains of Rushmore were designed or not in order to reach a design inference for the faces carved into them? No. Only the difference in specified complexity between the old and new patterns need be examined."

ID is so awesome. It is a science that does no lab or field work and relies on mathematical concepts that use no mathematical calculations. It reminds me of the Todd Snider song about the band that wouldn’t play a note.

Leo Stotch is no longer with us. -dt

(< 4' 33" > by John Cage also memorializes ID's research output.)

(ht carlsonjok)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong!.........that work is copyrighted.
Original and unique material that is indeed .......designed.

ID material can only be found in sewers, dustbins and those useless propaganda outlets .....X-Stain bookshops.

Unlike great art that hints at the divine capabilities of the human mind, ID material ends up in the same places vomit can be found.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 16 2008,06:21

Next DaveTard's gonna use the MIB flashy thingy:

< 19 >
DaveScot
04/16/2008
5:42 am

Leo Stoch is no longer with us and since he was being an asshat about it now his past comments are no longer with us either.
Posted by: Jkrebs on April 16 2008,06:41

Wow.  That will put a hole in some threads.  Unbelievable - except of course that it's not.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 19 2008,13:46

Several people have remarked that, while never formally banned, their comments simply stopped appearing on UD. If that happened to you, then PM me with the details. After conducting a thorough background check*, I'll include you in a compilation of similar unknown soldiers. If you otherwise don't find yourself in my compilation, let me know.

* Sent me a PM? Yes. Cleared.
Posted by: khan on April 19 2008,20:38

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 19 2008,14:46)
Several people have remarked that, while never formally banned, their comments simply stopped appearing on UD. If that happened to you, then PM me with the details. After conducting a thorough background check*, I'll include you in a compilation of similar unknown soldiers. If you otherwise don't find yourself in my compilation, let me know.

* Sent me a PM? Yes. Cleared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not one of the banned, but I am just disgusted by the total infantile puerile amoral behavior of these cretinous yahoos.

They can't even openly ban posters.

My opinion of fundieshits is only confirmed by their behavior: By their fruits ye shall know (Matthew 7:16)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 20 2008,10:49

Cry "Havoc!" And let slip the dogs of tard:

< 4 >
Dog_of_War
04/20/2008
12:21 am

You figure about 4 people per showing (just a number I pulled out of the air, but it seems reasonable), 1,050 theaters with 2 showings per theater, that’s 8,400 people per day.

At 7 dollars per ticket, that’s $58,800 a day. Not a big number as movie grosses go, but it adds up. Over a reasonable run, that could easily add up to over a million dollars.

Well, you’re only off by a bit over two orders of magnitude. Now go away. -UD admin
Posted by: JohnW on May 01 2008,16:18

< Uthan, we hardly knew ye >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4

William Dembski

05/01/2008

4:07 pm
I’m afraid Uthan won’t be here to comment again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The offending comment is gone, so I've no idea what he did.  But this is quite an honour.  Bannination by the witch, not just the flying monkey.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 01 2008,16:29

Quote (JohnW @ May 01 2008,16:18)
< Uthan, we hardly knew ye >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4

William Dembski

05/01/2008

4:07 pm
I’m afraid Uthan won’t be here to comment again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The offending comment is gone, so I've no idea what he did.  But this is quite an honour.  Bannination by the witch, not just the flying monkey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw it. Uthan's comment was something to the effect that Google Scholar had over 2 million hits on evolution and only 14 thousand for intelligent design.  An interesting comparison made more interesting by someone < pointing out > the danger of assuming Google hits equate to legitimacy.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Google hits has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a science. Consider that Time Cube has approximately 75,000 google results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 01 2008,16:32

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 01 2008,16:29)
I saw it. Uthan's comment was something to the effect that Google Scholar had over 2 million hits on evolution and only 14 thousand for intelligent design.  An interesting comparison made more interesting by someone < pointing out > the danger of assuming Google hits equate to legitimacy.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Google hits has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a science. Consider that Time Cube has approximately 75,000 google results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uthan also commented on the < Oxford conference thread >, and this comment is still up (for now)  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the papers:

   Thirdly, I will ask the question whether it is theologically warranted to conclude that the intelligent designer of ID can be the God of Christian theology. In other words, one can ask whether believers should want the designer of ID to be the God they worship. I doubt whether that is the case, by describing Karl Barth’s Kant’s inspired criticism of natural theology. I conclude that ID is an example of ‘the domestication of transcendence’, and that theologians should reject ID as a theological illusion, built to blind the faithful.

That was from one of the papers submitted, Taede Smedes
Catholic University of Louvain

< http://tinyurl.com/6zpkte >

Ouch!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 01 2008,16:33

I see Uthan's Bad Attitude is on ample display < here >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
44
Uthan Rose
05/01/2008
1:54 pm
Sal,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To cut to the chase, our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation. Anything beyond that is a guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is interesting. According to Wikipedia the distance to SN1987A has been measured by triangulation. The figure obtained is 168,000 light years.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not “turn on” until several months after the supernova, and the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough for their angular size to be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will you be giving up your YEC leanings now as this data appears to directly disconfirm your theory that the cosmos can be young?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not being an uneducated tard, he just didn't 'fit in'.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 01 2008,17:01

I think < Dr. BA > did his doctoral thesis or post-doc work on 1987A.

Sal should go ask him about it.

(snicker)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 02 2008,06:11

WAD grows weary, and the light is growing dim:

< 27 >
William Dembski
05/01/2008
8:35 pm

Andrea: I find your posts tiresome. Take them elsewhere.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 02 2008,07:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting number. 168,000 happens to be the speed of light in miles per second. Dr. Dr. D should pounce on this as the True signature of the Designer. What are the odds that this cosmic number should be expressed in earth years and English units, unless God is an Englishman?
Posted by: Reed on May 02 2008,17:25

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 02 2008,05:45)
Interesting number. 168,000 happens to be the speed of light in miles per second.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you are dylsexic ;)

The speed of light = 186,282.397 miles per second.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 02 2008,19:12

Quote (Reed @ May 02 2008,17:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 02 2008,05:45)
Interesting number. 168,000 happens to be the speed of light in miles per second.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you are dylsexic ;)

The speed of light = 186,282.397 miles per second.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only a materialist would let measurements get in the way of truth.:p
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 03 2008,06:38

The $64,000 question, posed to DaveScot:

< 68 >
Gerry Rzeppa
05/03/2008
12:45 am

And you claim that those three children and three grandchildren, given the same “proper training”, will be equally heroic when the time comes?

The $64,000 answer:

< 69 >
DaveScot
05/03/2008
12:54 am
Gerry

I’ve had all I can stand from you. You’re out of here...

< 70 >
Frost122585
05/03/2008
3:37 am

I have to admit Dave, with all due respect, I think Gerry has a point. You can’t chalk up stories like that just to training. That sounds more like a Darwinian reductionist attitude to me.


< 71 >
DaveScot
05/03/2008
4:02 am

Frost

When YOU have gone through the training, get back to me. Otherwise yours, like Gerry’s, is a voice of ignorance. But that’s not why I banned him. I banned him for trying to drag my children and grandchildren through the polluted waters of his so-called mind.

ETA:

76
PannenbergOmega
05/03/2008
7:49 am

I can’t believe Gerry has been banned. Jeesh.
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 08 2008,08:41

(I'm just filling in for RB, as he seems to be taking a well-deserved break).

< 8 >

psychodelict

05/07/2008

4:59 am

Tard Alert!

[Comment deleted]

The question was about scientists. The deleted list was various televangelists.

psychodelict is no longer with us ~ud admin
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 08 2008,19:51

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 08 2008,09:41)
(I'm just filling in for RB, as he seems to be taking a well-deserved break).

< 8 >

psychodelict

05/07/2008

4:59 am

Tard Alert!

[Comment deleted]

The question was about scientists. The deleted list was various televangelists.

psychodelict is no longer with us ~ud admin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm... I wonder.

Could be that was exactly the post intended by Psychodelict - announcing his/her own bannination. The post Psychodelict was created to post. The only post by that author anywhere on UD. The phrase "ud admin" has only appeared once previously at UD. The loudspeaker in the ceiling wasn't even on.

A disposable, one-use puppet.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 08 2008,20:11

Did anyone catch the deleted list?
Posted by: olegt on May 10 2008,07:53

Sarfati gets the boot.

< 75 >
Jonathan Sarfati
05/10/2008
12:32 am
DaveScot:

“All I want to say to the bible quotes you provide is I can easily give counter examples for all of them. You can quotemine the bible to support whatever you want.”

More likely, your understanding of basic historical-grammatical hermeneutics is on a par with that LePage moron in his recent New Scientist diatribe against creation, ID and the Bible.


< 83 >
DaveScot
05/10/2008
2:24 am
jonathan safarti

I don’t care for your tone in that last comment. Goodbye.

< 86 >
DLH
05/10/2008
7:17 am
DaveScott at 83
I found jonathan safarti to provide some of the more substantive links and comments on this blog. What’s the “beef”?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 10 2008,09:19

Now THAT is some proper Nixplanatory formating. Very important in this fallen age.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 12 2008,10:45

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 10 2008,09:19)
Now THAT is some proper Nixplanatory formating. Very important in this fallen age.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill - Given your incredible success with the Nixplanitory filter, The evil atheist overlords have ask me to offer you:

PROJECT 404: Threads that are no more
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 12 2008,19:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2008,11:45)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 10 2008,09:19)
Now THAT is some proper Nixplanatory formating. Very important in this fallen age.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill - Given your incredible success with the Nixplanitory filter, The evil atheist overlords have ask me to offer you:

PROJECT 404: Threads that are no more
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ACCEPT.

What did I just accept?

404s will be harder to track - no mere perusal of fossils embedded in the tard pits will do. Google caches can't be relied upon. Routine snapshots of UD will be needed to recover the text of 404'd threads for posteriority.
Posted by: blipey on May 12 2008,19:52

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 08 2008,19:51)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 08 2008,09:41)
(I'm just filling in for RB, as he seems to be taking a well-deserved break).

< 8 >

psychodelict

05/07/2008

4:59 am

Tard Alert!

[Comment deleted]

The question was about scientists. The deleted list was various televangelists.

psychodelict is no longer with us ~ud admin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm... I wonder.

Could be that was exactly the post intended by Psychodelict - announcing his/her own bannination. The post Psychodelict was created to post. The only post by that author anywhere on UD. The phrase "ud admin" has only appeared once previously at UD. The loudspeaker in the ceiling wasn't even on.

A disposable, one-use puppet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My puppet Dog_of_War was banned by "ud admin", but alas, the thread was destroyed.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 12 2008,19:56

Quote (blipey @ May 12 2008,20:52)
My puppet Dog_of_War was banned by "ud admin", but alas, the thread was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its sort of a multiverse scenario - universes within which Dog_of_War lives on, and UD universe, in which he never was.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 12 2008,20:30

i always figured dog of war was J-Dog.  thanks for the heads up blipey, you were just clowning around.

what if you really really knew who the cast of characters was over there.  would you still read?
Posted by: ERV on May 12 2008,21:10

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 12 2008,19:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2008,11:45)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 10 2008,09:19)
Now THAT is some proper Nixplanatory formating. Very important in this fallen age.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill - Given your incredible success with the Nixplanitory filter, The evil atheist overlords have ask me to offer you:

PROJECT 404: Threads that are no more
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ACCEPT.

What did I just accept?

404s will be harder to track - no mere perusal of fossils embedded in the tard pits will do. Google caches can't be relied upon. Routine snapshots of UD will be needed to recover the text of 404'd threads for posteriority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I has a hint for you, brave elf prince:
After 'The Adventure of the Disappearing ERV', I found that Yahoo cache is superior to that of Google.

Thats also how I found Marks recent 'letter from Iowa'.
Posted by: blipey on May 12 2008,23:05

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 12 2008,20:30)
i always figured dog of war was J-Dog.  thanks for the heads up blipey, you were just clowning around.

what if you really really knew who the cast of characters was over there.  would you still read?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes and no, as with most things.

I would probably read less more often.  IOW, I would read more for technical interest, sort of like I direct a show.  However, I would probably not do what I do now: read it slavishly for a few days and then get to a point where I don't read it at all for a couple of weeks.
Posted by: olegt on May 13 2008,06:54

Search engine caches won't help with 404ed threads.  As a rule, these threads are killed quickly before google or yahoo can catch them.  I don't see any simple solution short of mirroring UD offline.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2008,09:03

No-one said is was going to be easy. That's why the atheist-overlords picked Bill. He may activate any sleeper agents on this board. Bills clearance has been upped to triple O status. (Bob only has one...)
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 13 2008,11:54

Does Wes still keep BUUD operating?  That should capture most of the 404s.

I don't like the idea of being a triple O.  It makes me sound like a model railway.
Posted by: stevestory on May 13 2008,16:18

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 13 2008,12:54)
Does Wes still keep BUUD operating?  That should capture most of the 404s.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Dembski and company's need to coverup their embarrassments was so great they threatened to sue us if we preserved their words. They demanded the right to Expel themselves, in other words.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 13 2008,16:28

The Spatula Brain notwithstanding, somnambulant psychic projection in the service of the Queen will NOT be tolerated at UD. It's not scientific.

< 17 >
Patrick
05/13/2008
8:50 am

I think immature comments like those from dreamwalker007 should just be ignored. In any case, he’s now banned.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on May 13 2008,16:33

For what it is worth many accounts get silenced instead of banned.  I have had two accounts where instead of banning me they took away my ability to post anything.  I am still logged in and I can type in the comments box but when I hit "submit" (or whatever it is) the comments never show up.  So although I have not been formally banned, I can no longer post there.  I wonder how many under the radar "bans" like this happen on a daily basis.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 18 2008,08:28

The loudspeaker in the ceiling declaims; Freemind gets hatchet and block:

< 10 >
freemind
05/17/2008
11:39 pm

Frost:
My point was simply that it would be absolutely possible for me to obtain a PhD in Geography without gaining any knowledge that would make me any more qualified to talk about Quantum or string theory than the average man in the street. In essence, my qualification is worthless in such a context. So the headline might as well be 31,000 random members of the public don’t believe climate change will be harmful...

I sincerely hope you have somewhere else to comment because you’re no longer welcome here. -ds

The discussion, now headless, runs 'round the barnyard:

11
Frost122585
05/18/2008
2:33 am

Freemind said...

You act as if I didn’t understand your point but I spoke directly to it....

12
Frost122585
05/18/2008
2:41 am

I also don’t have time to respond to all of your nonsensical statements above. I find your views completely redundant of the stupefying mainstream media and public at large. I wish we didn’t have your “balance” here at this site UD. I prefer 100% clear thinking to a perceived fair and balanced 50% clear thinking 50% liberal propaganda....

13
Frost122585
05/18/2008
2:50 am

Also there is no consensus on global warming because it isn’t happening! It got colder last year (though the pro global warmign crowed tried to deny it) and it is projected to trend significantly colder for the next 10 to 15 years....

ht: Bob O'H
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 18 2008,08:37

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 18 2008,08:28)

The discussion, now headless, runs 'round the barnyard:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the interest of accuracy, when I quoted freemind earlier, he/she had not yet been banned. Frostie was commenting in the interim time between freemind's comment and Dave's swing of the banning stick.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 18 2008,09:45

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 18 2008,09:37)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 18 2008,08:28)

The discussion, now headless, runs 'round the barnyard:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the interest of accuracy, when I quoted freemind earlier, he/she had not yet been banned. Frostie was commenting in the interim time between freemind's comment and Dave's swing of the banning stick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet another problem with the loudspeaker. Can't see when the blow falls.
Posted by: dogdidit on May 18 2008,10:43

The Banninator kicks the cadaver:
<
19 >
DaveScot
05/18/2008
10:19 am
freemind

I realize you’re banned but thought I’d use your own logic against you.

According to your logic only a PhD botanist should be considered an expert on whether the effects of higher CO2 concentrations are good or bad for agriculture. Obviously you and I are incapable of reading about the relationship between CO2 and plant growth. Well, obviously YOU are incapable, in any case.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 18 2008,10:59

'Round the barnyard he runs.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 22 2008,15:12

Leo should've lit a fart:

< 7 >
leo
05/22/2008
11:02 am

BarryA,

I’m shocked. Rightous anger when the inaccuracy (or shall I say outright lie) of a post is pointed out! From you! Instead of noting that it was wrong, you continue to genuflect.

The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously.

[Leo: I’m afraid you don’t have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. –WmAD]
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 22 2008,15:35

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,15:12)
Leo should've lit a fart:

< 7 >
leo
05/22/2008
11:02 am

BarryA,

I’m shocked. Rightous anger when the inaccuracy (or shall I say outright lie) of a post is pointed out! From you! Instead of noting that it was wrong, you continue to genuflect.

The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously.

[Leo: I’m afraid you don’t have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. –WmAD]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, in keeping with their well-known spirit of fair play, the UDenizens continue to "argue" with leo, despite knowing full well that he will not be able to point out their errors again.

< Here, > < here, > < here, > and < here. >

The "right sense of humor" is apparently that of a playground bully; WmAD's revenge for all those wedgies he endured as a child.


Posted by: dogdidit on May 22 2008,16:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 22 2008,15:35)
And, in keeping with their well-known spirit of fair play, the UDenizens continue to "argue" with leo, despite knowing full well that he will not be able to point out their errors again.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Relativistic effects. < As RBill explained >, they wrote their posts before leo was banned, but back-modification by the loudspeaker makes it appear they are deliberately speaking to a ghost. It's unintentionally funny - imagine actors on a stage, ignoring the cops who have swept in to haul away one of their troupe, and continuing to speak lines to him (and pausing for the responses he is no longer able to make) with nary a pause.

It's a fine form of farcical theater. As RBill puts it:

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 18 2008,08:28)
The discussion, now headless, runs 'round the barnyard:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sums it up perfectly for me.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 22 2008,17:06

Quote (dogdidit @ May 22 2008,17:46)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 22 2008,15:35)
And, in keeping with their well-known spirit of fair play, the UDenizens continue to "argue" with leo, despite knowing full well that he will not be able to point out their errors again.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Relativistic effects. < As RBill explained >, they wrote their posts before leo was banned, but back-modification by the loudspeaker makes it appear they are deliberately speaking to a ghost. It's unintentionally funny - imagine actors on a stage, ignoring the cops who have swept in to haul away one of their troupe, and continuing to speak lines to him (and pausing for the responses he is no longer able to make) with nary a pause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be < Carlson's > insight.
Posted by: dogdidit on May 22 2008,17:21

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,17:06)
   
Quote (dogdidit @ May 22 2008,17:46)
       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 22 2008,15:35)
And, in keeping with their well-known spirit of fair play, the UDenizens continue to "argue" with leo, despite knowing full well that he will not be able to point out their errors again.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Relativistic effects. < As RBill explained >, they wrote their posts before leo was banned, but back-modification by the loudspeaker makes it appear they are deliberately speaking to a ghost. It's unintentionally funny - imagine actors on a stage, ignoring the cops who have swept in to haul away one of their troupe, and continuing to speak lines to him (and pausing for the responses he is no longer able to make) with nary a pause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be < Carlson's > insight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops! Thanks. Didn't look far enough up-stack... ???
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 22 2008,20:53

WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

< 63 >
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 24 2008,10:12

I was granted the golden mop to this forum on November 6, 2007.  As a comparison, we've banned two commenters since then.

Here's an updated score card since then:

AtBC - 2:

< VMartin >

< David Mabus >



Uncommon Descent - 35 (that we know of):

< temminicki2 >

< Stanton Rockwell >

< GLarson24 >

< Solon >

< Lazarus >

< cdesignproponentsists >

< digdug24 and Bugsy >

< Getawitness >

< SallyT >

< ellazim >

< Carl Sachs and Tedsenough >

< dcost >

< Xcdesignproponentsists >

< undesigned >

< Shoghi >

< Q >

< DRat07 >

< aaron >

< Semprini >

< Cloud of Unknowing (AKA Turncoat, AKA Tom English) >

< Thom English (again) >

< larrynomanfan >

< Leo Stotch > and even < his ghost >, for good measure.

< Dog_of_War >

< Uthan >

< Andrea >

< Gerry Rzeppa >

< psychodelict >

< Jonathan Sarfati >

< dreamwalker007 >

< freemind >

< Leo >

< Cue >
Posted by: PTET on May 24 2008,11:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2008,10:12)
I was granted the golden mop to this forum on November 6, 2007.  As a comparison, we've banned two commenters since then.

Here's an updated score card since then:

AtBC - 2:

< VMartin >

< David Mabus >



Uncommon Descent - 35 (that we know of)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was never explicitly banned... But my comments did mysteriously stop appearing at UD.

< Teach the controversy >, huh?

It's like Conservapedia. Wikipedia is evilly biased because it doesn't follow the Whackjob Christian Fundamentalist line. That means Conservapedia gets to be as goose-steppingly Conservative Christian as it likes - and that doesn't count as bias.


Oh yeah - do sockpuppets count? A big hi to < vesf > if he's listening :)
Posted by: Henry J on May 24 2008,16:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was never explicitly banned... But my comments did mysteriously stop appearing at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The Bermuda Triangle of blogs?

Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 24 2008,21:21

Without Comment:

< 15 >
DaveScot
05/24/2008
3:31 am

Denyse

Upon my return from a couple days away from the computer I found I’d been summarily expelled from the inner sanctum of the “big tent”.

Here are a couple of ground rules that weren’t spelled out to me about being allowed inside the big tent:

1) Thou shalt not question the Discovery Institute, its purposes, intents, or methods.

2) Thou shalt not question that belief in Darwin’s theory on the Origin of Species made the holocaust possible.

In other words, you don’t have to believe in God but you’d better believe in the Discovery Institute and not wander off-message.
Posted by: olegt on May 25 2008,05:30

Holy tard!  Has Dave been defrocked?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 27 2008,17:28

< This > has got to open some sort of wormhole in the fabric of space-time:

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 27 2008,16:06)
     
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 24 2008,19:56)
Holy crap.  I'm away on a birthday bender and come back to find DaveScot on < double secret probation? >        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Denyse

Upon my return from a couple days away from the computer I found I’d been summarily expelled from the inner sanctum of the “big tent”.

Here are a couple of ground rules that weren’t spelled out to me about being allowed inside the big tent:

1) Thou shalt not question the Discovery Institute, its purposes, intents, or methods.

2) Thou shalt not question that belief in Darwin’s theory on the Origin of Species made the holocaust possible.

In other words, you don’t have to believe in God but you’d better believe in the Discovery Institute and not wander off-message.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like Dave's post has gone down the memory hole. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on May 27 2008,20:07

Quote (PTET @ May 24 2008,11:04)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2008,10:12)
I was granted the golden mop to this forum on November 6, 2007.  As a comparison, we've banned two commenters since then.

Here's an updated score card since then:

AtBC - 2:

< VMartin >

< David Mabus >



Uncommon Descent - 35 (that we know of)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was never explicitly banned... But my comments did mysteriously stop appearing at UD.

< Teach the controversy >, huh?

It's like Conservapedia. Wikipedia is evilly biased because it doesn't follow the Whackjob Christian Fundamentalist line. That means Conservapedia gets to be as goose-steppingly Conservative Christian as it likes - and that doesn't count as bias.


Oh yeah - do sockpuppets count? A big hi to < vesf > if he's listening :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, my guess is that someone at UD took one look at your Image Icon, and realized that anyone showing Jesus stealing one of Cain or Abel's pet dinos from Teh Garden Of Eden, shouldn't be trusted with the ID Secret, and ratted you out to DaveScot.

You've got a great icon dude!
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on May 27 2008,21:45

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

< 63 >
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What was Cue's transgression?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 28 2008,00:50

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 27 2008,19:45)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

< 63 >
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What was Cue's transgression?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The usual, not kissing Bill's ass enthusiastically enough:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cue
05/22/2008
7:33 pm
Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.

Studies that don’t fit the scientific method, such as they aren’t conducive to experiments or aren’t readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science.

In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn’t make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 28 2008,06:52

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 28 2008,01:50)
 
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 27 2008,19:45)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

< 63 >
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What was Cue's transgression?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The usual, not kissing Bill's ass enthusiastically enough:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cue
05/22/2008
7:33 pm
Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.

Studies that don’t fit the scientific method, such as they aren’t conducive to experiments or aren’t readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science.

In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn’t make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is especially entertaining about WAD's post is that Percy Bridgman was the originator of operationism (although he never liked that term), and sought to replace abstract theoretical concepts within physics with the analysis of the operations by which those concepts are measured. These notions were influential among logical positivists. The logical positivist Feigl spent a sabbatical with Bridgman in 1930, after which he joined the faculty at Harvard and brought Bridgman’s views to the attention of E.G. Boring and his students S. S. Stevens and B. F. Skinner. As transplanted to behaviorism, operationism construed subjective experiences and cognitive activity (and agency generally) as beyond the reach of a truly scientific psychology.  

In short, Bridgman, whom WAD quotes in support of his warped construal of the natural world in terms of a guiding (but shy) intelligence, was actually the author of ideas that resulted in the ejection of intelligence and agency from human psychology for 50 years.

You'd think the guy would read up a little before he begins to go on about "gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science."
Posted by: k.e.. on May 28 2008,08:14

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 28 2008,14:52)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 28 2008,01:50)
   
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 27 2008,19:45)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

< 63 >
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What was Cue's transgression?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The usual, not kissing Bill's ass enthusiastically enough:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cue
05/22/2008
7:33 pm
Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.

Studies that don’t fit the scientific method, such as they aren’t conducive to experiments or aren’t readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science.

In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn’t make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is especially entertaining about WAD's post is that Percy Bridgman was the originator of operationism (although he never liked that term), and sought to replace abstract theoretical concepts within physics with the analysis of the operations by which those concepts are measured. These notions were influential among logical positivists. The logical positivist Feigl spent a sabbatical with Bridgman in 1930, after which he joined the faculty at Harvard and brought Bridgman’s views to the attention of E.G. Boring and his students S. S. Stevens and B. F. Skinner. As transplanted to behaviorism, operationism construed subjective experiences and cognitive activity (and agency generally) as beyond the reach of a truly scientific psychology.  

In short, Bridgman, whom WAD quotes in support of his warped construal of the natural world in terms of a guiding (but shy) intelligence, was actually the author of ideas that resulted in the ejection of intelligence and agency from human psychology for 50 years.

You'd think the guy would read up a little before he begins to go on about "gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you like me to give a P-A-R-:0)-D-Y of Lady Boy Bill's facetiousness to that rather phosphorous materialist reduction of said Girlyman's House of Cards sooty stain on ID lab bench.

k.e.. searches through kids dress up box for wizard hat ...with frigging stars and pink unicorns with long blue bushy tails OK?... and ridiculous oversized sweater, badly knitted by discarded girlfriend.

wMAD: RB .....here at UD science pseudoscience is what I say it is and if I quotemine some early postmodernist social scientist, with a twist, then the twits on this board will feel vindicated that their knob polishing hasn't been in vain. Remember history is written by the victors and my case I am truly a über  victoriass lacy angel winner. So there :P. and besides they haven't been on Colbert Nation or to Heffies place.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on May 28 2008,12:06

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 28 2008,00:50)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 27 2008,19:45)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

< 63 >
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What was Cue's transgression?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The usual, not kissing Bill's ass enthusiastically enough:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cue
05/22/2008
7:33 pm
Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.

Studies that don’t fit the scientific method, such as they aren’t conducive to experiments or aren’t readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science.

In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn’t make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Cue can make it up to Bill by buying him a sweater that is two sizes too big.
Posted by: DiEb on May 29 2008,12:32

Hi, I was silently banned from UD after posting < this >. This happened in the early morning, though my posts appeared for a short time, no one answered to them. So, UD could make a stealth banning...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 29 2008,19:40

Quote (DiEb @ May 29 2008,13:32)
Hi, I was silently banned from UD after posting < this >. This happened in the early morning, though my posts appeared for a short time, no one answered to them. So, UD could make a stealth banning...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, they've ever been reluctant to stand in public square with pants around their ankles.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 29 2008,19:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 29 2008,20:40)
Of course, they've ever been reluctant to stand in public square with pants around their ankles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Neither have I, but the cops around here have no sense of humor.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 29 2008,20:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 30 2008,03:44)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 29 2008,20:40)
Of course, they've ever been reluctant to stand in public square with pants around their ankles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Neither have I, but the cops around here have no sense of humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's only because they want you all to themselves in the dungeon....
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 11 2008,12:02

DaveScot likes only telepathic parrots:

< 70 >
DaveScot
06/11/2008
5:51 am

dmso74 hasn’t read The Edge of Evolution and is either making things up about what’s in it or is parroting falacious sources. He was warned to stop, ignored the warning, and is now no longer with us.
Posted by: dogdidit on June 11 2008,21:11

Behe Patrick has a go with front-loaded bannininininination:

< 5 >
CameronP
06/11/2008
11:42 am

“That, my friends, is a true example of how well the theory of evolution has been tested. It hasn’t been tested at all.”

Very, very bold claim.

Please cite evidence.

A nature.com search of the word “evolution” gives 60,000 results (I realize not all the results are scientific papers, and some papers use “evolution” in different ways, however, many, many thousand still use evolution in the ways criticized here, I’m just not good at filtering them out).

That’s a whole lot of not testing.

EDIT: This loony tune has already been banned by me. - P


Th- th- th- that's all, folks!!
Posted by: Zachriel on June 12 2008,05:59

Something's happened to < dmso74 >! He's no longer with us!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 12 2008,06:25

Quote (Zachriel @ June 12 2008,06:59)
Something's happened to < dmso74 >! He's no longer with us!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dmso74 was memorialized three posts upthread...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 17 2008,11:01

Poachy goes over easy:

< 3 >
DaveScot
06/17/2008
9:22 am

By popular demand poachy is no longer with us.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 17 2008,17:05

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 17 2008,11:01)
Poachy goes over easy:

< 3 >
DaveScot
06/17/2008
9:22 am

By popular demand poachy is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poachy, please delurk!
Posted by: Bob O'H on June 21 2008,02:12

Sorry, Patrick.  I would like to help, < but this bannination wasn't on RB's files. >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11

Patrick

06/20/2008

7:19 am

Tard Alert!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
would like to know why my previous nick, Bettawrekonize, was banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, your previous account is banned. I don’t know why but I can ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder if we'll get an answer.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 21 2008,10:44

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 21 2008,03:12)
Sorry, Patrick.  I would like to help, < but this bannination wasn't on RB's files. >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11

Patrick

06/20/2008

7:19 am

Tard Alert!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
would like to know why my previous nick, Bettawrekonize, was banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, your previous account is banned. I don’t know why but I can ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder if we'll get an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A quick search of UD finds no sign of disturbance in the farce concerning Bettawrekonize.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 05 2008,16:18

Bettawrekonize's remarks belong here as well:

Quote (Bettawrekonize @ July 05 2008,16:23)
For those of you that think Uncommondescent only discriminates against evolutionists, I would like to suggest that it's not true. They also seem to have banned me for no apparent reason. When I tried to login and it said invalid password. So when I tried to reset my password it said something to the extent of, "Invalid Key." I made another account and managed to post onto there and one of the mods said that it does show I was banned and he doesn't know why, but he will ask. After a while, I was able to login with my original account but when I post, my posts never make it to the awaiting Moderator confirmation screen and they never get posted. So I am assuming that I am "suspended" indefinitely? I was never told why I was banned and I was never told why my account seems to be suspended indefinitely. I think there is something wrong with their policy in general, not just against evolutionists in particular. Whatever, it's their forum and if everyone gets banned for no apparent reason (and no opportunity to redeem themselves), eventually no one will pay attention to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bettawrekonize on July 05 2008,16:23

Thanks for your help everyone. Like I said, I tried to E - Mail everyone there for an answer, but my E - Mails kept bouncing back.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 05 2008,17:05

Quote (Bettawrekonize @ July 05 2008,17:23)
Thanks for your help everyone. Like I said, I tried to E - Mail everyone there for an answer, but my E - Mails kept bouncing back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Betta - if you haven't yet, read this "blogczar" thread from the beginning. It will put your experience into stark perspective.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 08 2008,18:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15

DaveScot

07/08/2008
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

6:17 pm
austin_english

We have gross models of gravity that permit us to predict trajectories of projectiles with considerable accuracy. Similarly, we have gross models of evoluton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You really lost the plot there. NDE predicts nothing. Look at poor Dr. Lenski and his 20 years and 40,000 generations of E.coli. He couldn’t predict jack diddly squat about what or when (if anything) was going to happen to them in the way of evolving. All he could do was watch, wait, then when and if something did happen he could explain it after the fact.

You had better a get a clue pretty quick or you’re history here.

On second thought, get lost. That was just too stupid to tolerate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EDIT: cool. With an edit button I can scoop everyone.
Posted by: Ptaylor on July 08 2008,19:35

mwt,
You beat < me > me to it - well done.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 09 2008,08:29

Another one bites the dust, same thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30

DaveScot

07/09/2008

7:49 am
Petrushka

Austin English compared gravity to evolution. I told him it was ludicrous as gravity allows us to make exquisite predictions of the future and evolution can’t predict anything.

You then started to make analogies about evolution and the rolling of dice. Yeah, buddy, but it’s almost infinitely sided dice. No two rolls ever have to come up the same in a finite universe. You can’t make predictions based on statistics from dice like that. That’s why neo-darwinian evolutionary theory can make no unpredictions.

For participating in the stupidity of comparing of evolution to gravity you are out of here. Say hi to Austin English wherever he is.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on July 09 2008,11:15

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2008,10:12)
I was granted the golden mop to this forum on November 6, 2007.  As a comparison, we've banned two commenters since then.

Here's an updated score card since then:

AtBC - 2:

< VMartin >

< David Mabus >



Uncommon Descent - 35 (that we know of):

< temminicki2 >

< Stanton Rockwell >

< GLarson24 >

< Solon >

< Lazarus >

< cdesignproponentsists >

< digdug24 and Bugsy >

< Getawitness >

< SallyT >

< ellazim >

< Carl Sachs and Tedsenough >

< dcost >

< Xcdesignproponentsists >

< undesigned >

< Shoghi >

< Q >

< DRat07 >

< aaron >

< Semprini >

< Cloud of Unknowing (AKA Turncoat, AKA Tom English) >

< Thom English (again) >

< larrynomanfan >

< Leo Stotch > and even < his ghost >, for good measure.

< Dog_of_War >

< Uthan >

< Andrea >

< Gerry Rzeppa >

< psychodelict >

< Jonathan Sarfati >

< dreamwalker007 >

< freemind >

< Leo >

< Cue >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I maybe don't count as banned - It was just that since none of my short comments posted over a couple of years ever showd up, I began posting little pieces of dreck to see if I could wake them up, and after quite some time I finally got my hearts desire fulfilled: instead of "If you are not Dizzy ...", I got "You need to be logged in to comment"
Posted by: olegt on July 09 2008,21:31

Ahem...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< 12 >
DaveScot
07/09/2008
9:16 pm
stcordova’s last comment was deleted for inappropriate graphic sexual content and he, for the time being, is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on July 09 2008,23:03

That's three in about 24 hours.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 20 2008,21:44

An inference to the best nixplanation:

< 8 >
jerry
07/20/2008
8:15 pm

Well it looks like Stephen Matheson has got his wish and got banned from here. While he seemed to be going out of his way to be negative, he did raise some interesting questions that would have been nice to debate with him.

Ht: Jkrebs
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 21 2008,00:36

Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,21:31)
Ahem...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< 12 >
DaveScot
07/09/2008
9:16 pm
stcordova’s last comment was deleted for inappropriate graphic sexual content and he, for the time being, is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disappeared..
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 26 2008,05:59

Forensic SETI, too. (The investigation of crimes committed by extra terrestrial intelligences.)

< 3 >
William Dembski
07/25/2008
2:07 pm

Denyse, You’re too kind (to Atticus that is). I’ve booted him/her off the forum. If SETI is science, then ID is science.
Posted by: Henry J on July 26 2008,20:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denyse, You?re too kind (to Atticus that is). I?ve booted him/her off the forum. If SETI is science, then ID is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, but, SETI isn't trying to revise any basic principles; it's operating withint the currently accepted basic principles.

Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 27 2008,09:38

Maya means "illusion," so we missed Maya's bannification when it occurred:

< 73 >
Patrick
12/05/2007
7:44 pm

...It’s obvious at this point you have nothing left to say, so you’re just lashing out with the usual talking points that are distortions of the real issues. Adios!

But the thread staggered on, just a bit confused:

74
jerry
12/05/2007
8:21 pm

If Maya is banned then that is unfortunate. It would be better to take all her objections and discuss them with her as opposed to letting her leave a series of one liners and then being banned.

75
jerry
12/05/2007
8:59 pm

Maya,

What one person says does not represent what others believe especially in a brand new discipline...

76
jerry
12/05/2007
9:15 pm

Maya,

you said,

“That’s not the case...

77
Joseph
12/06/2007
7:36 am

I take it that Maya will not produce even ONE prediction borne from the anti-ID materialistic position.

Thank you Maya for demonstrating...

78
jerry
12/06/2007
9:23 am

Wasn’t Maya banned?

Whereupon the headless body of yet another UD thread fell dead.
Posted by: dvunkannon on July 27 2008,22:29

I'm banned too!

At the height of my UD street cred, Sal actually put my name in the headline of one of his posts on why YECs don't always like ID. But I fell from grace swiftly after that, and finally got the boot from DS for < these comments >.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 28 2008,06:31

Quote (dvunkannon @ July 27 2008,23:29)
I'm banned too!

At the height of my UD street cred, Sal actually put my name in the headline of one of his posts on why YECs don't always like ID. But I fell from grace swiftly after that, and finally got the boot from DS for < these comments >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your banning was duly recorded upthread < here >. Search for DvK.
Posted by: olegt on July 28 2008,09:33

UD don't need no stinkin' < diversity >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< 5 >
William Dembski
07/28/2008
9:17 am
Bob O’H is no longer with this forum.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bob's offense?  < Pointing out > that Denyse can't write.  Duh.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 28 2008,10:35

< Uncommonly Denyse >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Were I the Dean of English, for example...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were Denyse Dean of English we'd know that the end times were upon us, and backward talking be all would we.
Posted by: Hermagoras on July 28 2008,11:20

Quote (olegt @ July 28 2008,09:33)
UD don't need no stinkin' < diversity >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< 5 >
William Dembski
07/28/2008
9:17 am
Bob O’H is no longer with this forum.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bob's offense?  < Pointing out > that Denyse can't write.  Duh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't DaveScot once promise to defend Bob at all costs?  

(Hi all.  It's been a while.  Had to pop in when I saw this news.)
Posted by: Hermagoras on July 28 2008,11:24

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 28 2008,10:35)
< Uncommonly Denyse >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Were I the Dean of English, for example...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were Denyse Dean of English we'd know that the end times were upon us, and backward talking be all would we.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  Possible O'Leary academic posts, in order of ascending fuckedupitude:

Professor of Journalismology
Dean of Farts and Seances
Provost
Emperor (It was Chancellor, but then the Sith took over . . . )
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 28 2008,11:32

Oh, I've just realised: I can finally use this:


It's the one thing I've been missing out on over here.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 28 2008,11:36

Bob you had one hell of a run.  Congrats!
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 28 2008,11:39

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 28 2008,06:32)
Oh, I've just realised: I can finally use this:


It's the one thing I've been missing out on over here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bob,

I am sorry to say this may have been my fault as I was thinking of repeating my suggestion of a boycott of UD to highlght the dearth of new ideas by the remaining pro ID clique.

It seems I am to get my wish courtesy of UD moderators.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 28 2008,11:42

Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2008,11:24)
Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  Possible O'Leary academic posts, in order of ascending fuckedupitude:

Professor of Journalismology
Dean of Farts and Seances
Provost
Emperor (It was Chancellor, but then the Sith took over . . . )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the heavy handed moderation policy over at Uncommon Descent, perhaps we should start calling her < Journalissimo >?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 28 2008,11:43

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 28 2008,11:39)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 28 2008,06:32)
Oh, I've just realised: I can finally use this:


It's the one thing I've been missing out on over here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bob,

I am sorry to say this may have been my fault as I was thinking of repeating my suggestion of a boycott of UD to highlght the dearth of new ideas by the remaining pro ID clique.

It seems I am to get my wish courtesy of UD moderators.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan you hippie liberal drinking your Chateau Mouton Rothschild, being all existentialist and hexing people...  :angry:
Posted by: Quidam on July 28 2008,11:51

Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2008,10:24)
Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not neccessarily.  In the UK & Canada at non-collegiate Universities, the Dean is the head of a faculty or group of departments.  

So while it is unlikely that a University would have a Dean of English, as English is usually just a department, it's not impossible.
Posted by: Hermagoras on July 28 2008,12:34

Quote (Quidam @ July 28 2008,11:51)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2008,10:24)
Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not neccessarily.  In the UK & Canada at non-collegiate Universities, the Dean is the head of a faculty or group of departments.  

So while it is unlikely that a University would have a Dean of English, as English is usually just a department, it's not impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Canadians.
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 28 2008,12:43

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 28 2008,11:42)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2008,11:24)
Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  Possible O'Leary academic posts, in order of ascending fuckedupitude:

Professor of Journalismology
Dean of Farts and Seances
Provost
Emperor (It was Chancellor, but then the Sith took over . . . )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the heavy handed moderation policy over at Uncommon Descent, perhaps we should start calling her < Journalissimo >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't that give her undue credibility as a journalist?

You see, now I'm banned, the gloves are really coming off.
Posted by: Quidam on July 28 2008,18:02

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 28 2008,11:43)
Wouldn't that give her undue credibility as a journalist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought we had already established that she was a < plumber >...

Posted by: J-Dog on July 28 2008,18:22

Quote (Quidam @ July 28 2008,18:02)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 28 2008,11:43)
Wouldn't that give her undue credibility as a journalist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought we had already established that she was a < plumber >...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you should share with the class the story behind how and why you got into Denyse's bathroom and were able to photograph her doing some of her Journalism Research.

I'll go make some popcorn.
Posted by: Quidam on July 29 2008,10:45

Tht's not HER bathroom.  She's a professional and can be hired by the hour.  

I can't recommend her services though, she spent a lot of time trying to prove that the "log jam" was designed and didn't 'just happen'
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 04 2008,17:40

Fool me once...

< 125 >
DaveScot
08/04/2008
1:17 pm

Sparc,

You were warned about using KF’s name and even apologized for it so I know you read the warning. And this right after I decided you were trustworthy enough to remove from the moderation list.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Adios.

Fool me three times, shame on, well, me again. Fool me four times...
Posted by: Jkrebs on Aug. 04 2008,22:21

To be fair, sparc's unbanning should be duly noted here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
131 DaveScot 08/04/2008 9:18 pm

Sorry Sparc. You’re back.

KairosFocus: Stop complaining about people using your real name here. You link to your website constantly and your real name appears on it. Fix it yourself one way or the other but don’t expect us to waste our time on it anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 16 2008,14:54

A bit cryptic, but I say it belongs here:

< 8 >
DaveScot
08/16/2008
12:46 pm

Dear bililiad,

I installed a WordPress upgrade that included a beta test version of something called Troll Filter v1.0. Upon activation all your comments disappeared. Sorry about that. We’re working with wordpress to determine the root cause of the problem.
Posted by: PTET on Aug. 17 2008,12:37

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 16 2008,14:54)
A bit cryptic, but I say it belongs here:

< 8 >
DaveScot
08/16/2008
12:46 pm

Dear bililiad,

I installed a WordPress upgrade that included a beta test version of something called Troll Filter v1.0. Upon activation all your comments disappeared. Sorry about that. We’re working with wordpress to determine the root cause of the problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes indeed.

< Farewell, Bililiad, we hardly knew ye... >

ETA:-

At the start it was easy. Beginning my first UD comment with "DaveScot as always you are absolutely right" got me out of moderation and into straight-posting before I could say "Jack Robinson". For a while, I took things fairly easy. Sure, my comments were dumb, some immensely so, but Intelligent Design Creationism is a big tent, and at the start no-one seemed to notice just one more slightly unhinged visitor to UD. Eventually though, as so often in life, I got just too smart for my own good. No-one, surely, could be that enthusiastic about Denyse O'Leary's senseless wittering. As with all good things, my sock-puppetry came to an end. After six months of occasional posting, DaveScot's genius-level IQ spluttered into action. With a firm thump to the side, his nixplanatory filter managed a rare true-positive. Credit where credit is due, Dave played his cards with good humour...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 17 2008,12:48

I feel somewhat ambivalent about all the puppetry, because it actually makes the banninations appear somewhat reasonable.

This was more fun when mostly earnest posters were being discarded left and right.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 22 2008,18:19

Dave replaced some tubes and is using the Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.:

< 57 >
CEC09
08/22/2008
3:57 am


...CECO09 - Accolytes? You can go act like an asshat elsewhere. Obviously you hold an unshakable faith that nothing but religion is behind ID and now your frustration in no one here accepting that is causing you to become frustrated and insulting. Since you can no longer contain your disdain you are no longer welcome. Goodbye. -dt
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 22 2008,18:27

I thought I could add some caustic comment, but it really isn't needed. However, Dave, you are a complete and utter waste of space.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 22 2008,19:39

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 22 2008,19:19)
Dave replaced some tubes and is using the Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.:

< 57 >
CEC09
08/22/2008
3:57 am


...CECO09 - Accolytes? You can go act like an asshat elsewhere. Obviously you hold an unshakable faith that nothing but religion is behind ID and now your frustration in no one here accepting that is causing you to become frustrated and insulting. Since you can no longer contain your disdain you are no longer welcome. Goodbye. -dt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny. At one point Dembski prohibited Davetard from putting comments in other people's posts. That behavior was too jerkish even for Dembski. Remember? Davetard started pouting and threatened to quit? Last year I think.

I guess that stricture has been loosened, or Davetard's just doing whatever he feels like, or something.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 22 2008,19:54

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2008,20:39)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 22 2008,19:19)
Dave replaced some tubes and is using the Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.:

< 57 >
CEC09
08/22/2008
3:57 am


...CECO09 - Accolytes? You can go act like an asshat elsewhere. Obviously you hold an unshakable faith that nothing but religion is behind ID and now your frustration in no one here accepting that is causing you to become frustrated and insulting. Since you can no longer contain your disdain you are no longer welcome. Goodbye. -dt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny. At one point Dembski prohibited Davetard from putting comments in other people's posts. That behavior was too jerkish even for Dembski. Remember? Davetard started pouting and threatened to quit? Last year I think.

I guess that stricture has been loosened, or Davetard's just doing whatever he feels like, or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Good times >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 22 2008,19:56

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2008,20:39)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 22 2008,19:19)
Dave replaced some tubes and is using the Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.:

< 57 >
CEC09
08/22/2008
3:57 am


...CECO09 - Accolytes? You can go act like an asshat elsewhere. Obviously you hold an unshakable faith that nothing but religion is behind ID and now your frustration in no one here accepting that is causing you to become frustrated and insulting. Since you can no longer contain your disdain you are no longer welcome. Goodbye. -dt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny. At one point Dembski prohibited Davetard from putting comments in other people's posts. That behavior was too jerkish even for Dembski. Remember? Davetard started pouting and threatened to quit? Last year I think.

I guess that stricture has been loosened, or Davetard's just doing whatever he feels like, or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The fateful day >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: Lou beat me to it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 23 2008,02:41

< 2 >
William Dembski
08/22/2008
11:59 pm

I’m paying special attention to this thread so that only civil, thoughtful comments are entered. “Physicalist,” whoever s/he was, is no longer with us.

Translation: I’m paying special attention to this thread so that only civil, thoughtful comments are entered. “Physicalist,” whoever you are, fuck off.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 23 2008,07:18

Would it be unthoughtful and uncivil to suggest that science seeks find regularities rather than whims?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 24 2008,19:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lizlizard

It doesn’t appear you want any constructive dialog but rather just came here to disrupt this thread with your preconceived beliefs. You’ve had your say and I want other people to get a chance to have theirs. Zip it in this one

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Sincerely, Dave >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 01 2008,16:55

But Tiktaalik is forever:

< 4 >
William Dembski
09/01/2008
4:10 pm

Liz Lizard is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 05 2008,11:16

Thanks to < DaveScot's > braggadocio we document actions of the UD Department of Bannitation we had missed:

< 11 >
William Dembski
04/15/2007
9:25 pm

I’ve removed Phonon and Dopderbeck from this forum.

Phonon also posted here for a time under a Dembski as Newton avatar, but disappeared.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 05 2008,20:07

This would be blockhead vs. brick wall. Right?

< 265 >
DaveScot
09/05/2008
6:02 pm

Screw this.

Jack Krebs and Ted Davis are no longer with us. Arguing with TE’s is like beating your head against a brick wall.

If anyone wants to carry on their conversations with them then do it on their websites.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 05 2008,20:18

From this we can infer the big tent has no TE's but does have a brick wall. Praise the designer!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 06 2008,00:13

brick testament?

designer is mesopotamian?.  oh shit.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 06 2008,01:28

Beleated!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 06 2008,08:08

Edited to subtract...

< 265 >
DaveScot
09/05/2008
6:02 pm

...After reviewing Timaeus’ last several comments and finding the word “God” in them over 100 times (I stopped counting at 100) I decided he needs to take it to a site where the topic is God. He is now no longer with us either.

(Highly likely this occurred in response to Deadman's post < here >. Yet another example of ridiculative selection.)

ETA: This is an exceptionally long and thoughtful thread with respectful, articulate, and well argued contributions from Jack, Ted Davis, and Timaeus. DaveScot waves his arms from time to time, but his interjections are largely ignored.

No wonder they were banned.

Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2008,13:56

DaveScot will later brag that he singlehandedly eradicated a deadly infectious disease:

< 14 >
DaveScot
09/19/2008
11:20 am

Upright BiPed, this is politics and has nothing to do with ID, or are you proposing to ban all liberal Democrats that support ID from UD?

I don’t have a problem with that.

TB is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2008,14:01

Maybe it's male menopause:

< 1 >
DaveScot
09/19/2008
12:53 pm

The housecleaning continues…

God’s Ipod is no longer with us. His potty mouth comment was swept away with him.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2008,14:14

When Dave has these little flareups, I can't help but wonder if he's just hung over and taking it out on everyone else.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 19 2008,14:22

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,14:14)
When Dave has these little flareups, I can't help but wonder if he's just hung over and taking it out on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is that he is having his man period.  Throw him a Midol, would ya Arden?

EDIT: Man-stration?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2008,14:26

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2008,12:22)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,14:14)
When Dave has these little flareups, I can't help but wonder if he's just hung over and taking it out on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is that he is having his man period.  Throw him a Midol, would ya Arden?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, I think your mom's got a few of 'em here...

[reaches across bed toward nightstand, fumbles with lamp]
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 19 2008,14:27

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,12:14)
When Dave has these little flareups, I can't help but wonder if he's just hung over and taking it out on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect Denyse turned him down again.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 19 2008,14:29

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 19 2008,20:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,12:14)
When Dave has these little flareups, I can't help but wonder if he's just hung over and taking it out on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect Denyse turned him down again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Retches}

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 19 2008,19:16

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 19 2008,14:29)
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 19 2008,20:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,12:14)
When Dave has these little flareups, I can't help but wonder if he's just hung over and taking it out on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect Denyse turned him down again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Retches}

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wretches also works.  Just on a different level.

Rectum??? Hell, it damn near killed 'em!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 21 2008,20:41

Who has the greater contempt for whom? I can't tell:

< 11 >
William Dembski
09/21/2008
7:58 pm

GCUGreyArea: I think you’ll be happier elsewhere, so you have your wish. I didn’t delete your post, however, because it is instructive. The contempt you feel toward ID is the contempt I feel toward Darwinian materialism, only more so. What I find so offensive about that viewpoint is that it bills itself as the antidote to superstition, the only way to enlightenment, and therefore as justified in using any means whatsoever to advance itself.
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Sep. 21 2008,21:03

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 21 2008,20:41)
Who has the greater contempt for whom? I can't tell:

< 11 >
William Dembski
09/21/2008
7:58 pm

GCUGreyArea: I think you’ll be happier elsewhere, so you have your wish. I didn’t delete your post, however, because it is instructive. The contempt you feel toward ID is the contempt I feel toward Darwinian materialism, only more so. What I find so offensive about that viewpoint is that it bills itself as the antidote to superstition, the only way to enlightenment, and therefore as justified in using any means whatsoever to advance itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could we have the quote that got him banned? Because what Dembski posted actually makes not the slightest sense. GCU's comment holds no contempt for ID, but for the hypocrisy of UD, and is not at all instructive for Dr Dr Twatball's* propaganda purposes.

* alternative spelling
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Sep. 21 2008,21:16

Hey wait, I can add it myself:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

8
GCUGreyArea
09/21/2008
6:26 pm

“…have lost the intellectual battle.”

!

I’d laugh if it wasn’t so tragic.

“Where do they find these clueless chuckleheads and how do they possibly get advanced degrees?”

Here is your answer DaveScot, you find them on Uncommon descent.

Well I guess that’s me expelled. No dissent allowed on uncommon descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EDIT: for ineptness
Posted by: Freelurker on Sep. 26 2008,19:38

I wish that GCUGreyArea would drop by AtBC. He presented the finest example I have ever seen of an Engineer debunking ID using an Engineering point-of-view.
Posted by: GCUGreyArea on Sep. 27 2008,05:04

Hi there, I'm here now...
Posted by: huwp on Sep. 27 2008,06:14

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,05:04)
Hi there, I'm here now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, I'm mostly a lurker but I thought I'd say hello, especially as your username is from one of my favourite books.

Welcome.  Just so as you know... they're all very nice here but some of them are, well, a little odd.

Carlsonjok used to have a thing about horses but now does a lot of "har har this is you" type pictures.

Louis and Arden go on an awful lot (and I do mean an awful lot) about each other's mothers but REALLY we all know they've got a thing for each other and ought to get a room.

Afarensis and J-dog both have a thing about cavemen, in fact I have a suspicion that J-dog actually IS a caveman.

One of the Mods is a witch, another seems to be rather fond of the bottle and the third has a beard but likes to wear a red dress - we've seen the pictures.

Zachriel and Reciprocating Bill are very brainy but are as dotty as the rest of them.

We used to have a poster called richardthughes who was very funny and wrote the very best tardologues (although others write quite good ones too).  He went off in a bit of a huff and I for one miss his contributions.

A significant amount of communication appears to be achieved by means of LOLcats (is there nothing they can't do?)

I think that's about it.  There are loads of others here and most of them are a bit dotty too.

Anyway, welcome!

Huwp
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 27 2008,06:28

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,06:04)
Hi there, I'm here now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DUDE! We've been waiting for you. (I'm feeling vaguely like St. Peter.)

You'll find clean towels on the stool in the bathroom (what I mean to say is...), clean sheets in the center hall closet. You might have to wait for hot water so be patient. Please DO NOT attempt to use the dumb waiter; she has her own thread.

I < here > admired your exchange with DaveScot vis the evolution of wheels.
Posted by: PTET on Sep. 27 2008,07:07

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,05:04)
Hi there, I'm here now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


W00t! Welcome... I missed your posts from UD :)


Posted by: GCUGreyArea on Sep. 27 2008,07:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I < here > admired your exchange with DaveScot vis the evolution of wheels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi all, thanks for the welcome.

Freelurker, Its a shame DaveScot was so determined to misunderstand me and shut down what was, for me, a discussion on an interesting idea.

I found that seemed to be the case with most of the UD crowd - they decided that I was 'against them' and a delusional materialist, and proceeded to interpret everything I said in that light, even when I gave them the benefit of the doubt and made comments that presumed some form of intelligent creation.

One poster produced a quote about being certain that primates were incapable of appreciating beauty and when I argued that it was arrogant of them to assume that we are the only CREATED creatures capable of this I got flamed for being a 'materialist atheist'.

I sometimes wonder if they actually read any of the posts...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 27 2008,08:35

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,07:50)
One poster produced a quote about being certain that primates were incapable of appreciating beauty and when I argued that it was arrogant of them to assume that we are the only CREATED creatures capable of this I got flamed for being a 'materialist atheist'..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, even if you're not a materialist atheist, you're welcome here. UD is poorer (if that's possible) without your presence, but your contributions were appreciated here.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 27 2008,09:09

Quote (huwp @ Sep. 27 2008,06:14)
I think that's about it.  There are loads of others here and most of them are a bit dotty too.

Anyway, welcome!

Huwp
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget Albus Dumbledore Doctor Doolittle Wesley Ellsberry, who feeds the animals, stocks the bar, and hammers out the magick one tag at a time.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 27 2008,09:34

Quote (huwp @ Sep. 27 2008,12:14)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,05:04)
Hi there, I'm here now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, I'm mostly a lurker but I thought I'd say hello, especially as your username is from one of my favourite books.

Welcome.  Just so as you know... they're all very nice here but some of them are, well, a little odd.

Carlsonjok used to have a thing about horses but now does a lot of "har har this is you" type pictures.

Louis and Arden go on an awful lot (and I do mean an awful lot) about each other's mothers but REALLY we all know they've got a thing for each other and ought to get a room.

Afarensis and J-dog both have a thing about cavemen, in fact I have a suspicion that J-dog actually IS a caveman.

One of the Mods is a witch, another seems to be rather fond of the bottle and the third has a beard but likes to wear a red dress - we've seen the pictures.

Zachriel and Reciprocating Bill are very brainy but are as dotty as the rest of them.

We used to have a poster called richardthughes who was very funny and wrote the very best tardologues (although others write quite good ones too).  He went off in a bit of a huff and I for one miss his contributions.

A significant amount of communication appears to be achieved by means of LOLcats (is there nothing they can't do?)

I think that's about it.  There are loads of others here and most of them are a bit dotty too.

Anyway, welcome!

Huwp
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this is true. Except for the bits that are.

Ignore Huw's bitterness, he's just envious that Arden and I don't include him in the boredom-banter. Oh, and he's a suspect Welshman, which is never a good thing. The Committee for the Persecution of Welsh People is investigating him as we speak.

Never trust a member of any nation that has beaten England at rugby, they do not appreciate just what the "test" part of a test match is testing (manners).

Louis
Posted by: GCUGreyArea on Sep. 27 2008,10:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, even if you're not a materialist atheist, ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think the main reason I'm not an atheist is that when I sit in a lab watching grossly over simplified simulations of agents slowly evolving I sometimes wonder if, from something else's point of view, our universe is just a gross over simplification of a different reality and we are the simple low dimensional agents slowly evolving.  Of course that doesn't mean I don't know the difference between empirical science and wild theological speculation.

Unfortunately on UD DaveScot prohibits talking about the designer, you are only allowed to talk about the designs.  Now if I were an anthropologist or an archaeologist looking at, lets say, an ancient arrow head,  I don't think I would get into to much trouble with my peers by trying to infer something about the designer or creator of the arrow head.

Of course I do love to speculate and there are lots of what one might call 'non materialist' scenarios we can dream up about the creation of the universe that are the result of a 'creator' but which most of the UD people would probably reject because they don't fit the traditional theological concept of creation.  Here are a couple of my favourites though:

Unintentional creation:

Benevolent version - "Opps I seem to have accidentally created a universe but it looks like some interesting entities might emerge if I keep it going for long enough.  Hmmm, maybe if I just tweak that bit there it might speed things along a bit... Whats that dear? Why have I created another universe? umm, well, err, its all part of this grand plan..."

Non-Benevolant version - "Damn it, another universe, that wasn't what I wanted.  I know, I'll stick it in the shed with all the others..."

Intentional creation:

"Finally I have created the perfect universe, look at its glorious elegance and total sterility... ah, damn it, not again, little fxxxers"
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 27 2008,11:13

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,11:55)
Of course I do love to speculate and there are lots of what one might call 'non materialist' scenarios we can dream up about the creation of the universe that are the result of a 'creator' but which most of the UD people would probably reject because they don't fit the traditional theological concept of creation.  Here are a couple of my favourites though:

Unintentional creation:

Benevolent version - "Opps I seem to have accidentally created a universe but it looks like some interesting entities might emerge if I keep it going for long enough.  Hmmm, maybe if I just tweak that bit there it might speed things along a bit... Whats that dear? Why have I created another universe? umm, well, err, its all part of this grand plan..."

Non-Benevolant version - "Damn it, another universe, that wasn't what I wanted.  I know, I'll stick it in the shed with all the others..."

Intentional creation:

"Finally I have created the perfect universe, look at its glorious elegance and total sterility... ah, damn it, not again, little fxxxers"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You comment calls to mind mine < here >. For context, a discussion on this topic (mostly with Jack Krebs) began < here >.
Posted by: Freelurker on Sep. 27 2008,15:39

Welcome to you, indeed, GCUGreyArea.

stevestory is the mod who started the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread and its successor, Uncommonly Dense Thread 2. He can be as funny and insightful as anyone. You'll appreciate this one (it's the one that got me to unlurk here):

mcc:  
"Maybe I knew this at one time, but I've forgotten. What was Dembski's PHD thesis again?"
 
stevestory:
"It was a Ph.D in economics. His thesis was entitled 'Inefficient Markets in Religious Apologetics: Identifying New Profit Opportunities in Selling Jargon to Morons'"
Posted by: huwp on Sep. 27 2008,18:22

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,09:34)
None of this is true. Except for the bits that are.

Ignore Huw's bitterness, he's just envious that Arden and I don't include him in the boredom-banter. Oh, and he's a suspect Welshman, which is never a good thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not at all bitter but I am Welsh, look you, and I'm simply delighted that you and Arden have found happiness together, albeit in a somewhat twisted way.  But whatever turns you on...

Anyway, after all the recent banninations - and dt simply must have overdosed on cheesy poofs or something - you'd have thought someone would have done a tardologue by now but no.

<sigh><mutter>
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 29 2008,01:03

Bannination reported over < here >.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 29 2008,06:43

"Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That’s why I'm banning you":

< 64 >
DaveScot
09/28/2008
11:41 pm

AB

I would have thought, that the term “Drama Queen”, and kindred examples of fashionable internet lingo, would never see the light of day here. I am disappointed.

Drama Queen is fashionable internet lingo? Huh. I’m pretty sure I was using the term before Al Gore invented the internet. Be that as it may I didn’t expect to see anyone compare UprightBiped to Stalin or Khomeini. I guess we all have our crosses to bear.

Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That’s why we call it the big tent. It’s not “Anything But Darwinism”. It’s design detection and it’s employed daily by everyone both consciously and unconsciously, formally and informally, to discriminate between the intentional and the unintentional. I think the most insightful thing you said here so far was that you don’t seem to be fitting in. I agree. Goodbye.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 29 2008,06:56

In classic UD fashion, after the bannination BarryA and StephenB, the next two commenters, continue to debate the banned as if he was still among them and able to reply.

Then Dave pulls out the FtK card with this < interesting noun construction > (my emphasis)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All I know is classical materialism is dead yet there are hoardes of scientists who think it’s still alive and well.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 29 2008,07:03

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2008,06:56)
In classic UD fashion, after the bannination BarryA and StephenB, the next two commenters, continue to debate the banned as if he was still among them and able to reply.

Then Dave pulls out the FtK card with this < interesting noun construction > (my emphasis)    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All I know is classical materialism is dead yet there are hoardes of scientists who think it’s still alive and well.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a collective noun. "A hoarde of misers", e.g.
Posted by: George on Sep. 29 2008,07:22

Not to be confused with a "whorde".
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 01 2008,06:31

A fractional bannination:

< 12 >
DaveScot
09/30/2008
10:49 pm

TomRiddle is no longer with us.

Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again. I felt bad that I was taking time away from his holocaust denial work on his own blog. He gets irritable when he doesn’t get enough Jew-bashing time. I think he probably likes Osama because of Osama’s muslim background and connections.

DaveTard (yes, it's DaveTard again) isn't capable of the abstract thinking required to see that "Jew bashing" and "Muslim bashing" belong to the same class of behaviors, namely bigotry. His underlying racism is also making itself felt vis his "affirmative action child" comments. Hence I am revoking my withdrawal of the "Tard" cognomen he earned by means of his opposition to the Nazi-evolution connection, because in my view all bigotry is equally pernicious.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 01 2008,09:55

Osama?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 01 2008,18:41

DaveTard Photoshops his own work:

Before:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again. I felt bad that I was taking time away from his holocaust denial work on his own blog. He gets irritable when he doesn’t get enough Jew-bashing time. I think he probably likes Osama because of Osama’s muslim background and connections.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< After >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behold the POWER of ridiculative selection (sound of gloved fist crunching).
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 07 2008,16:03

*kksssht* The Loudspeaker in Ceiling is now active *kkksssht*:

< 3 >
BDKnight

10/07/2008
10:56 am
Oh my gosh, this is crazy I thought Obama was just a smart respectable guy who loved his country....

[BDKnight is no longer with this forum. --UD Moderation]
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2008,06:39

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 07 2008,17:03)
*kksssht* The Loudspeaker in Ceiling is now active *kkksssht*:

< 3 >
BDKnight

10/07/2008
10:56 am
Oh my gosh, this is crazy I thought Obama was just a smart respectable guy who loved his country....

[BDKnight is no longer with this forum. --UD Moderation]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The above now having been completely obliviated.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 12 2008,00:20

Bury Dave's heart at wounded knee:

< 14 >
DaveScot
10/11/2008
9:51 pm

Terry Fillups is hasta la bye bye. Please update your bannination lists accordingly.

Shuts off the thread. Knocks some mud off. Wheels it back. Muses: He's nothing if not predictable, and manipulable.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 14 2008,21:18

We need only admire < Ptaylor >'s work...

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 14 2008,20:31)
   
Quote (Skullboy @ Oct. 14 2008,16:44)
Just to document this before it's gone:

< Another doomed UD comment >

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joejoe17

10/14/2008

4:17 pm
Actually, Poe’s Law states that religious fundamentalists just cannot be parodied.

Of course on this site, I can see why you offered a slightly modified version of the true Poe’s Law.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and now:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 19 2008,09:25

Some low level hidden obliviation (gone but not forgotten; HT to didymos):

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 19 2008,04:09)
All the politicking is starting to attract detractors:

< idnet.com.au >:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

idnet.com.au

10/19/2008

12:24 am

If the anti ID crowd needed any further evidence for when they assert that ID is a political movement, they will soon get it from all the US right wing politics so brazenly displayed here.

To be pro ID does not equate with being right or left wing. Let’s make that clear in the intro to posts like this one. I know BO has no time for ID and I think that alone is where we should address our points.

Just a view from Australia.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and

< acorbit >:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

acorbit

10/19/2008

1:02 am

Does this blog actually discuss ID any more? Given all the purely political, anti-Obama/pro-McCain posts recently I’m beginning to wonder.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Enjoy them while they last.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 19 2008,13:22

Also obliviated (ht Oldman):

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 19 2008,13:43)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah…

Except it as little to do with the paper — and/or field of research — of Lenski (which I’m well aware of, because I’ve read 2 of his papers just today).

DaveScot, maybe you would like to have a close look at Lenski’s work…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A voice of sanity in the wilderness over at UD?

< Finchy >
Go Atticus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: GCUGreyArea on Oct. 20 2008,05:32

If I knew how I think I might try and put together a UcD mirror site with a Wiki like revision log.  Basically it would capture the posts on UcD at regular intervals and log the edits and deletions so you could go and see all the deleted or re-edited posts in the same way you can look in the history part of a Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately I don't know how to do this, and there is every chance that the UcD crowd would dislike it so much they would try and claim copyright infringement.

Just a thought...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 20 2008,05:35

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Oct. 20 2008,05:32)
If I knew how I think I might try and put together a UcD mirror site with a Wiki like revision log.  Basically it would capture the posts on UcD at regular intervals and log the edits and deletions so you could go and see all the deleted or re-edited posts in the same way you can look in the history part of a Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately I don't know how to do this, and there is every chance that the UcD crowd would dislike it so much they would try and claim copyright infringement.

Just a thought...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Something similar used to exist but UD claimed copyright issues and got it closed down. Wes (IIRC) used to run it.

However, they can't claim copyright on what they delete can then? I suspect a greasemonkey script might be able to perform such a role, in browser, with no possible legal consequences (as it's would all be client side) but that level of scripting is a bit beyond me.

< https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 16 2008,11:47

Strange Days.

The original (HT Jack Krebs):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No atheist/theist slugfests here
< DaveScot >

I deleted a recent post by Bill Dembski, another by Gil Dodgen, and another by IDNET that appeared to serve no purpose other than antagonizing atheists. This is not “serving the ID community”.

Theism and atheism are bound to come up in discussion here but the science (or art if you don’t believe it’s science) of design detection is not informed by theistic or atheistic belief so these should come up infrequently and when they do, if the conversation becomes disrespectful or proselytizing or antagonistic, the material is going to disappear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The revision:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No atheist/theist slugfests here
< DaveScot >:

I deleted three recent posts that appeared to serve no purpose other than antagonizing atheists. This is not “serving the ID community”.

Theism and atheism are bound to come up in discussion here but the science (or art if you don’t believe it’s science) of design detection is not informed by theistic or atheistic belief so these should come up infrequently and when they do, if the conversation becomes disrespectful or proselytizing or antagonistic, the material is going to disappear.

I also continue to expect that comments be about the subject of the article they appear under. Off topic comments are subject to removal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 16 2008,20:38

That makes my day, and it's been a bad one up to now.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 16 2008,21:22

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 16 2008,21:38)
That makes my day, and it's been a bad one up to now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've come to the right place. I hereby obliviate all recollection of today's negative events. They've been replaced with pleasant thoughts consistent with your most hopeful self-regard.

(Unfortunately, they have no relationship to reality. Look where you are, man.)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 17 2008,05:37

An example of how UD allows comments and then for some reason deletes them again when their own supporters make them look foolish. Crossposted from the UD thread.
< Change at UD. >
< >< >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 17 2008,06:43

< DaveScot > has pissed away:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot is No Longer With Us
Barry Arrington

DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is affectionately eulogized in the comments:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my opinion, you are an extremely intelligent human being. Unfortunately, you suffer from some sort of psychosis....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 17 2008,07:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 17 2008,06:43)
< DaveScot > has pissed away:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot is No Longer With Us
Barry Arrington

DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is affectionately eulogized in the comments:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my opinion, you are an extremely intelligent human being. Unfortunately, you suffer from some sort of psychosis....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent Catch and Eulogy!

DaveScot = Some Sort Of Psycho"...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 17 2008,09:06

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 17 2008,06:43)
< DaveScot > has pissed away:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot is No Longer With Us
Barry Arrington

DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is affectionately eulogized in the comments:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my opinion, you are an extremely intelligent human being. Unfortunately, you suffer from some sort of psychosis....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like the end of an error, or sump'n.
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 17 2008,09:43

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 17 2008,09:06)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 17 2008,06:43)
< DaveScot > has pissed away:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot is No Longer With Us
Barry Arrington

DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he is affectionately eulogized in the comments:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my opinion, you are an extremely intelligent human being. Unfortunately, you suffer from some sort of psychosis....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like the end of an error, or sump'n.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are we looking at the boundary of the Scotardacious - Awfularrintonicious sequence here?
Posted by: Jkrebs on Nov. 17 2008,10:18

Any bets on whether Dave comes back or not?  Is the shakeup really over?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 17 2008,10:26

"DaveScot is no longer with us"

The King of Tard is dead!  Long live the King!
Let the B-B-Barry Banninations Begin!
Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 17 2008,12:38

Live by the bannination, die by the bannination.

I know he brought it on himself, but I always feel a bit sorry for someone who is treated like that. Do you think he might appreciate a visit from a clown to cheer him up?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 17 2008,14:35

Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 17 2008,12:38)
Live by the bannination, die by the bannination.

I know he brought it on himself, but I always feel a bit sorry for someone who is treated like that. Do you think he might appreciate a visit from a clown to cheer him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I called to cheer him up, but he didn't answer.  :D
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 17 2008,14:56

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 17 2008,14:35)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 17 2008,12:38)
Live by the bannination, die by the bannination.

I know he brought it on himself, but I always feel a bit sorry for someone who is treated like that. Do you think he might appreciate a visit from a clown to cheer him up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I called to cheer him up, but he didn't answer.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't one of your Bretheren - Chuckie - call or visit him?
Posted by: steve_h on Nov. 17 2008,15:19

The post in which DS announced that he had deleted some posts has been deleted.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 17 2008,15:22

Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 17 2008,16:19)
The post in which DS announced that he had deleted some posts has been deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

Double plus ungood.
Posted by: EyeNoU on Nov. 17 2008,15:52

I think Dave's departure deserves a song parody.

(To the tune of "American Pie" by Don McLean)

A long long time ago
I can still remember
How that Tardfest used to make me smile
And I knew if DaveTard had his chance
That he could make IDC's people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while
But November news made me sadder
it even made KairosFocus blather
Bad news on UD's website
DaveTard, there, would no more write
I can't remember if I cried
When I thought about his wounded pride
But something touched me deep inside
The day that DaveTard fly'd
...

So bye, bye  Mr. UD TARD guy
Drove my browser to UD's website but the TARD stream was dry
And AtBC regulars were drinking craft beers and Skyy
Singing this'll be the day DaveTard cries
Thisll be the day DaveTard cries

Did Dr.Dr. write the books of TARD
And is denying science all that hard
If the Bible tells you to?
Now do you believe "Of Pandas and People"
'Cause you heard it underneath a church steeple?
And can you teach me how to "Gish Gallop" real fast?
Well, I know that all of you love TARD
'cause laughing at it's not that hard
You all surf the 'net for more
and are sure to share it if you score
I am a lowly middle-age Texas misfit
With a laptop computer and a place to sit
But I knew that ID was bullshit
before the day that DaveTard fly'd
I started singing

Bye, bye  Mr. UD TARD guy
Drove my browser to UD's website but the TARD stream was dry
And AtBC regulars were drinking craft beers and Skyy
Singing this'll be the day DaveTard cries
Thisll be the day DaveTard cries


Now, for many years we've been defending science
Yet some folk keep flinging TARD in defiance
But that's not how it ought to be
When the people voted for a new Prez and Veep
they told the wingnuts Sarah Palin you keep
In a voice that came from you and me
Oh and while DaveTard was feeling down
The UD site stole his banninator crown
When Judge Jones' courtroom was adjourned
A great verdict was returned
And while Dave screamed,"Obama's just like Marx"
The voters quietly rejected that farce
with Election Day totals after dark
The day that DaveTard fly'd
We were singing

Bye, bye  Mr. UD TARD guy
Drove my browser to UD's website but the TARD stream was dry
And AtBC regulars were drinking craft beers and Skyy
Singing this'll be the day DaveTard cries
Thisll be the day DaveTard cries

I have way too much free time on my hands......




Posted by: khan on Nov. 17 2008,16:16

POTW!
Posted by: Jkrebs on Nov. 17 2008,16:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The post in which DS announced that he had deleted some posts has been deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The irony is astounding.  Did I already mention that the Friday meltdown seems to have come early and often this week.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 17 2008,16:34

Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 17 2008,15:19)
The post in which DS announced that he had deleted some posts has been deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To quote Churchill, this is “like watching two dogs fighting under a carpet.”  Something is happening but it's hard to tell what.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 17 2008,16:39

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 17 2008,14:34)
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 17 2008,15:19)
The post in which DS announced that he had deleted some posts has been deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To quote Churchill, this is “like watching two dogs fighting under a carpet.”  Something is happening but it's hard to tell what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is one of them shaved and walking backwards?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 17 2008,20:32

Thought it best to archive this one:
We'll see if Barry (or Dave) let it stay.

25

Bueller_007

11/17/2008

8:38 pm

Dave, I’m sorry you were EXPELLED before you had the chance to show us that proof that Obama wasn’t an American that you were talking about before.

Remember how you said that the Republicans were going to whip that proof out right before the election? And then how it didn’t happen? I’d love to know more about it.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 17 2008,20:38

Ha!
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 17 2008,23:42

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 18 2008,04:32)
Thought it best to archive this one:
We'll see if Barry (or Dave) let it stay.

25

Bueller_007

11/17/2008

8:38 pm

Dave, I’m sorry you were EXPELLED before you had the chance to show us that proof that Obama wasn’t an American that you were talking about before.

Remember how you said that the Republicans were going to whip that proof out right before the election? And then how it didn’t happen? I’d love to know more about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WELL SINCE I'M BANNED AND CAN'T BAN YOU DIRECTLY ANYMORE I'M GONA BAN U REMOTELY FROM MY FLOATING COMMAND DEATH STAR!!

WHY IS IT THAT YOU CHANCE WORSHIPPERS CONSTANTLY WANT TO REWRITE HISTORY.

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU?

HISTORY IS WHAT WE I ALLOW TO STAY, IF IT'S NOT THERE IT IS NOT HISTORY GOT THAT? WRITE THAT DOWN!

LOOK HERE IS HOW IT WORKS.

WE DECIDE WHAT HISTORY SHOULD BE BEFORE IT HAPPENS....RIGHT?

THEN IF YOU FUCK UP OUR VIEW OF HISTORY WE DECIDE WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DECIDED. SO WE CORRECT YOUR ERROR AND YOU HAVE THE CORRECT HISTORY.

IF ACTUAL FACTS GET IN THE WAY WE JUST USE A LITTLE AIRBRUSHING TO REMOVE THE IMPERFECTIONS.

JUST LIKE ID. dt
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 22 2008,08:10

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 17 2008,21:32)
Thought it best to archive this one:
We'll see if Barry (or Dave) let it stay.

25

Bueller_007

11/17/2008

8:38 pm

Dave, I’m sorry you were EXPELLED before you had the chance to show us that proof that Obama wasn’t an American that you were talking about before.

Remember how you said that the Republicans were going to whip that proof out right before the election? And then how it didn’t happen? I’d love to know more about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's gone.
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 22 2008,09:01

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 22 2008,08:10)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 17 2008,21:32)
Thought it best to archive this one:
We'll see if Barry (or Dave) let it stay.

25

Bueller_007

11/17/2008

8:38 pm

Dave, I’m sorry you were EXPELLED before you had the chance to show us that proof that Obama wasn’t an American that you were talking about before.

Remember how you said that the Republicans were going to whip that proof out right before the election? And then how it didn’t happen? I’d love to know more about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sic transit gloria mundi....

A true microcosm of the ID "movement."
Posted by: dvunkannon on Nov. 25 2008,15:23

According to < Patrick >, switch89 is no longer with them.

Has comment by comment deletion increased in the BaryA era?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 25 2008,16:40

This obliviated thread gives a chortle (HT Ptaylor):

1
russ
11/24/2008
6:26 pm

If succeeding generations of young girls continue to chase evolutionists up trees, then is it not reasonable to expect that evolutionists will adapt, developing wings or perhaps ape-like arms for swinging from tree to tree, out of the reach of mean-girl predators?

2
ribczynski
11/24/2008
6:41 pm

"Billy! Come down from that tree and show us your flagellum!"

3
Chemfarmer
11/24/2008
8:43 pm

IMO, this post serves only to scorn the anti-ID crowd and is unbecoming of us on the ID side. I find this embarrassing.

4
Bueller_007
11/24/2008
9:12 pm

It's funny because they're going to kill him for his beliefs.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 26 2008,15:18

DaveTard needles a thread:

< 47 >
DaveScot
11/26/2008
1:50 pm
rib

NDE doesn’t predict when or if significant changes will happen. Since you cannot seem to acknowledge that simple fact you need to move along. Don’t post any more in this thread. Other authors here may continue to entertain your obstinance but I will not.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 26 2008,15:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveTard needles a thread
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well that sew and sew.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 27 2008,07:01

Then Barry took a breath, drew himself to his full height, and took that fateful step from former candidate for Congress of the United States to master of the banning stick at Uncommon Descent. He thought to himself, "I've made it. I've attained my dream of power and influence."

< 58 >
Barry Arrington
11/27/2008
12:21 am

JackInhofe, it does not matter. I gave two chances (you know what I mean) and you did not explain yourself. You are banned.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Nov. 27 2008,07:12

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Like most of his ilk, Barry has a love-hate relationship with Jack Inhofe.

Trepidatious about banning a poster, Barry finally decided he had to rub one out.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Nov. 27 2008,09:08

It probably comes as no surprise, but now Barry's post banning Jack is gone.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 27 2008,09:19

A cross between Kafka and Lewis Carrol.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 27 2008,10:05

Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 27 2008,10:08)
It probably comes as no surprise, but now Barry's post banning Jack is gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, behold the power of Ridiculative Selection (sound of gloved fist crunching)
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 27 2008,10:51

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 27 2008,10:05)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 27 2008,10:08)
It probably comes as no surprise, but now Barry's post banning Jack is gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, behold the power of Ridiculative Selection (sound of gloved fist crunching)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry - Learning at the feet of the MasterBanner, DaveScot.

Yes, it takes a special kind of person to run a site like UD.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 27 2008,10:55

possibly he rubbed Jack Inhofe on a sock?

kafka meets carrol for sure. an inappropriate existential opium dream if i ever saw one.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 28 2008,06:04

Barry Arrington runs from classroom to classroom with a renewed sense of purpose:

< 13 >
Barry Arrington
11/28/2008
3:51 am

Bueller_007 and MaxEntropy are no longer with us.

Pow! Pow!
Posted by: GCUGreyArea on Nov. 28 2008,11:40

Some posts have been deleted as well.  Did anyone capture them?  I ought to have as I was actually MaxEntropy (A little reference to the Maximum Entropy Production Principal) but I didn't save any of the stuff I wrote..

Hmm, I didn't last nearly as long that time.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Nov. 29 2008,03:11

< Barry A sticks to the tried and tested formula >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2

Barry Arrington

11/29/2008

2:57 am

colin_evans101 is no longer with us.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Dec. 02 2008,17:46

< Bannination threat! >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry Arrington
12/02/2008
6:07 pm

Rib, you have now devolved into sophistry. It is only a very short step from sophistry to “booted from UD.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 02 2008,18:33

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 29 2008,03:11)
< Barry A sticks to the tried and tested formula >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2

Barry Arrington

11/29/2008

2:57 am

colin_evans101 is no longer with us.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah... but he should give proper credit.  he's standing on the shoulders of the Tard That Has Gone Before Him.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Dec. 03 2008,20:16

This interchange between ribcynski and Dave on the Olofsson thread is classic UD. It starts when Dave sez "yer wrong!":      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 23 >
ribczynski
11/26/2008
12:55 am

DaveScot wrote:
   ID predicted that nothing of any significant novel complexity would emerge in 10^30 opportunities for mutation and selection in p.falciparum.
   You said this agrees with the prediction of NDE. I disagree with that. NDE predicts something might emerge or it might not.


True, and the results did not contradict NDE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rib even agrees with Dave at this point, but Dave, being the pompous prick he is, has to bluster, and in doing so contradicts himself:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 30 >
DaveScot
11/26/2008
8:30 am

rib
True, and the results did not contradict NDE.

Of course not. How can an outcome contradict NDE when NDE predicts all outcomes? NDE predicts major evolutionary changes happen except for when they don’t happen. I guess you didn’t get the subtle point that NDE made no prediction at all - a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then rib calls Dave's bluff, and politely but decisively shoots him down:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 44 >
ribczynski
11/26/2008
1:15 pm

DaveScot wrote:
   How can an outcome contradict NDE when NDE predicts all outcomes? NDE predicts major evolutionary changes happen except for when they don’t happen. I guess you didn’t get the subtle point that NDE made no prediction at all - a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.

A contingent science cannot make predictions in every instance. And by the way, that applies to ID (which is contingent on the idiosyncrasies of an unknown designer) as well as every other theory. Even the “Theory of Everything” being sought by physicists won’t predict the weather on August 13, 2045.

As for NDE predicting “everything”, that is obviously false.

NDE does not predict that rabbit fossils will be found in Precambrian strata, to use Haldane’s classic example.

NDE does not predict that sheep are more closely related to paramecia than they are to goats.

NDE does not predict that the Cubs will win the Series this year.

I could go on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Davey don't like being shown that he's wrong. Now he's pissed, and thinking "Clearly we can't have someone this articulate posting here.  What to do, what to do? I know! Quick, change the argument":
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< DaveScot >
11/26/2008
1:50 pm

rib

NDE doesn’t predict when or if significant changes will happen. Since you cannot seem to acknowledge that simple fact you need to move along. Don’t post any more in this thread. Other authors here may continue to entertain your obstinance but I will not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When it's clear that you are outclassed, silence the opposition by any means, even if it requires trumped-up charges.  In this case, insubordination by rib for failing to acknowledge Dave's ridiculous bluster provides a thin excuse.   Probably Dave wanted outright bannination, but that would clearly violate the "new moderation policy", and since poor Dave lost his position as Czar, this was the best he could do. I'm sure everone at UD are just itching to find a reason to ban ribcynski, but so far he's been able to dance close to the edge. It won't last. I predict within a week, they'll find some paltry excuse to give him/her the boot.  I'm rootin' for ya, rib!
It's the entertainment value of exchanges like this that are leading me into incurable tardaholism.  I'm an addict, and I can't stop myself.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 03 2008,20:39

Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 03 2008,21:16)
It's the entertainment value of exchanges like this that are leading me into incurable tardaholism.  I'm an addict, and I can't stop myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right there with you man.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 03 2008,21:28

DaveTard can't stop himself. He blusters to Dembski too:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 185 >
DaveScot
12/03/2008
10:05 pm

Bill,

Yeah, I recognized that problem for the EF in biology at first glance which is why I never liked talking about it with the flagellum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well why didn't you just say so?

Yer a fucking genis, Dave.
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 03 2008,21:55

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2008,05:28)
DaveTard can't stop himself. He blusters to Dembski too:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 185 >
DaveScot
12/03/2008
10:05 pm

Bill,

Yeah, I recognized that problem for the EF in biology at first glance which is why I never liked talking about it with the flagellum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well why didn't you just say so?

Yer a fucking genis, Dave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THAT'S EF'n RIGHT! HOMO.

SEE MY PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT STATE THAT OBVIOUS FACT IN NATURE ETC. COMPLETE WITH GENIUS FORMULAE AND UNCRUNCHABLE LOGIC.-dt



Dave Tard once again claims he knows the outcomes of next weekends games but delays his answer until next Monday.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 03 2008,22:01

The thread is much shorter and easier to read now.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 03 2008,22:11

DaveTard obliviates the comments of his betters:

< 171 >
DaveScot
12/03/2008
10:43 pm

ribczynski

I asked you to stay out of this thread several days ago. If you continue to post to it I’m just going to delete them as I did just now.

Hey Dave! You forgot "Nyah nyah!"
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 04 2008,07:31

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2008,06:11)
DaveTard obliviates the comments of his betters:

< 171 >
DaveScot
12/03/2008
10:43 pm

ribczynski

I asked you to stay out of this thread several days ago. If you continue to post to it I’m just going to delete them as I did just now.

Hey Dave! You forgot "Nyah nyah!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK HOMO!

NYAH NYAH NINY NINY THRRRP!

dt
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 04 2008,08:23

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 03 2008,21:28)
DaveTard can't stop himself. He blusters to Dembski too:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 185 >
DaveScot
12/03/2008
10:05 pm

Bill,

Yeah, I recognized that problem for the EF in biology at first glance which is why I never liked talking about it with the flagellum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well why didn't you just say so?

Yer a fucking genis, Dave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Turd On A Morphodyke... Could there possibly be a Bigger Suck-Up than DaveScot?  

I think ID predicts this.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Dec. 11 2008,17:05

FYI, I have been unbanned at UD, to the extent that I can log in and get a comment box. I haven't seen any of my comments show up yet.

No sockpuppetry involved, I just asked politely.

For those of you scoring at home, congratulations!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 15 2008,17:37

RoyK has actually read Searle and Dennett. As BarryA has already emphasized, that makes him dangerous, likely to shoot up the joint. So out he goes:

< 27 >
Barry Arrington
12/15/2008
5:38 pm

RoyK is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 15 2008,17:40

Norman Doering also lacks that special dimness upon which sustained posting at UD is contingent:

< 28 >
Barry Arrington
12/15/2008
5:40 pm

Norman Doering is no longer with us.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 17 2008,15:24

Barry abandons any remaining pretense of openness at UD:

< 4 >
Barry Arrington
12/17/2008
3:47 pm

Neither Mike nor Mark seem to understand the point of the post. The post is not about the nature of consciousness. It is about the hypocrisy of trying to have it both ways — saying it means nothing and that it means everthing at the same time. Mike and Mark should move along. Those of you capable of grasping the basic point of the post should feel free to post comments.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 21 2008,13:28

< Clive's pure soul becomes corrupted by the power of bannination >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
54

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:17 pm

rib said,

“I didn’t ask for an apology. I asked for a single standard to be applied to ID supporters and critics alike at UD.”

I am applying that standard, and we may need to get something straight first, the standard is not whether one asks for an apology, it is whether someone is decent enough to give it. You aren’t. I am. That’s a double standard, even by your estimation, and I won’t allow it. Either you realize that you don’t have autonomy to treat UD folks however vile and disrespectfully you want on that other site and expect for us to grant you privileges on this site–That’s a double standard too–or you will no longer post here. I don’t need any suggestions from you. Either you apologize for your insults, or you will be gone. Understand?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
58

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:58 pm
“rib” is no longer with us. we should refer to him in the future as “r.i.p.” instead   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Odd thing is, he didn't even wait for my apology.  :p
Posted by: sledgehammer on Dec. 21 2008,14:34

Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 03 2008,20:16)
I'm sure everone at UD are just itching to find a reason to ban ribcynski, but so far he's been able to dance close to the edge. It won't last. I predict within a week, they'll find some paltry excuse to give him/her the boot.  I'm rootin' for ya, rib!
It's the entertainment value of exchanges like this that are leading me into incurable tardaholism.  I'm an addict, and I can't stop myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, my prediction was off by a week or three.  Keiths, you gave Clive the excuse he needed, by exposing your sock's identity.  So we're back to banninations for our posts on PT.
Big scary 'ol Clive appears to lurk here "religiously", so YOU BETTER WATCH WHAT YOU SAY, YOU CHURCH BURNIN' EBOLA BOYS, 'CAUSE UNCLE CLIVE IS LISTENING, and we've always been at war with Eurasia!
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 22 2008,16:05

Was google chatting with the girlfriend a few minutes ago:

me: what do you think of this sweater?


her: that's horrible.
#1 it looks like an old man's sweater
#2, it's a sack on him

steve:
lol
the guy wearing it is named William Dembski. He's the big head honcho of "Intelligent Design". The biology website I help moderate has made fun of him for years. And for 3 years now, we can't get over that sweater.
Like i'm actually trying to track down where it was made and order like a dozen of them just because they're so awful.

Meredith:
aaack no!
one of them in the world is too many!

steve:
it's a perverse thing. it's like it's so bad it's good

Meredith:
no no. it's so bad it's bad.
i know there's a fine line there, and all, but it crossed it
or hasn't crossed it
one of the two
Posted by: khan on Dec. 22 2008,16:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
steve:
lol
the guy wearing it is named William Dembski. He's the big head honcho of "Intelligent Design". The biology website I help moderate has made fun of him for years. And for 3 years now, we can't get over that sweater.
Like i'm actually trying to track down where it was made and order like a dozen of them just because they're so awful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have visions of a scienceblogs gathering with many folks wearing such a sweater.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 22 2008,16:52

Quote (khan @ Dec. 22 2008,17:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
steve:
lol
the guy wearing it is named William Dembski. He's the big head honcho of "Intelligent Design". The biology website I help moderate has made fun of him for years. And for 3 years now, we can't get over that sweater.
Like i'm actually trying to track down where it was made and order like a dozen of them just because they're so awful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have visions of a scienceblogs gathering with many folks wearing such a sweater.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh yeah that's totally the point. I want that MFing sweater, and I was it now, and I want to wear it while smoking Camels and drinking coronas and deleting random comments by Louis.
Posted by: Louis on Dec. 22 2008,17:20

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 22 2008,22:52)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 22 2008,17:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
steve:
lol
the guy wearing it is named William Dembski. He's the big head honcho of "Intelligent Design". The biology website I help moderate has made fun of him for years. And for 3 years now, we can't get over that sweater.
Like i'm actually trying to track down where it was made and order like a dozen of them just because they're so awful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have visions of a scienceblogs gathering with many folks wearing such a sweater.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh yeah that's totally the point. I want that MFing sweater, and I was it now, and I want to wear it while smoking Camels and drinking coronas and deleting random comments by Louis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair you never actually delete them.

After all you wouldn't want to emulate Dembski in more than just great taste in sweaters....

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 12 2009,18:24

Bannination threat. Let's hope Clive livens things up a bit.

< 33 >
Clive Hayden
01/12/2009
5:54 pm

YellowShark,

And secondly, I noticed that you said the following on another website:
“My reply (as TheYellowShark) to Dembski’s latest pile of tard is “awaiting moderation”.”

Folks can see it here:

< (link) >

“Dembski’s latest pile of tard” you say?

I expect an apology, not to me, but to Dr. Dembski, or you will be “banninated,” as ya’ll like to say :). And I don’t mind the bannination button for folks so blatantly disrespectful. And all the rest of you sock-puppets that expect privileges of commenting here with anonymity, all the while being vile on another thread, if your cover is blown and you don’t appropriately apologize, you’ll be gone too. So you’ll have to keep the bragging down and not blow your cover too soon if you want to comment here.

I'll apologize for him. WAD: he meant "horseshit." Sorry about that.
Posted by: Bueller_007 on Jan. 12 2009,20:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 12 2009,17:24)
Bannination threat. Let's hope Clive livens things up a bit.

< 33 >
Clive Hayden
01/12/2009
5:54 pm

YellowShark,

And secondly, I noticed that you said the following on another website:
“My reply (as TheYellowShark) to Dembski’s latest pile of tard is “awaiting moderation”.”

Folks can see it here:

< (link) >

“Dembski’s latest pile of tard” you say?

I expect an apology, not to me, but to Dr. Dembski, or you will be “banninated,” as ya’ll like to say :). And I don’t mind the bannination button for folks so blatantly disrespectful. And all the rest of you sock-puppets that expect privileges of commenting here with anonymity, all the while being vile on another thread, if your cover is blown and you don’t appropriately apologize, you’ll be gone too. So you’ll have to keep the bragging down and not blow your cover too soon if you want to comment here.

I'll apologize for him. WAD: he meant "horseshit." Sorry about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My reply.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have my word that--although I think it's a bit draconian to ban someone for what they say off-site--I  *shall* apologize to Dr. Dembski when an apology is forthcoming from "BaylorBear", who posted on this website an objectionable cartoon depicting a "humourous" threat to the safety of people who accept evolution.

Incidentally, since there have been two topics on UD specifically directed as replies to my comments you would think I would be somewhat welcome here as I've at least given you something to talk about.

1. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-really >
2. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....entrism >

I shall address the remainder of your comment if I am not "banninated".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 12 2009,21:14

Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 12 2009,20:53)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 12 2009,17:24)
Bannination threat. Let's hope Clive livens things up a bit.

< 33 >
Clive Hayden
01/12/2009
5:54 pm

YellowShark,

And secondly, I noticed that you said the following on another website:
“My reply (as TheYellowShark) to Dembski’s latest pile of tard is “awaiting moderation”.”

Folks can see it here:

< (link) >

“Dembski’s latest pile of tard” you say?

I expect an apology, not to me, but to Dr. Dembski, or you will be “banninated,” as ya’ll like to say :). And I don’t mind the bannination button for folks so blatantly disrespectful. And all the rest of you sock-puppets that expect privileges of commenting here with anonymity, all the while being vile on another thread, if your cover is blown and you don’t appropriately apologize, you’ll be gone too. So you’ll have to keep the bragging down and not blow your cover too soon if you want to comment here.

I'll apologize for him. WAD: he meant "horseshit." Sorry about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My reply.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have my word that--although I think it's a bit draconian to ban someone for what they say off-site--I  *shall* apologize to Dr. Dembski when an apology is forthcoming from "BaylorBear", who posted on this website an objectionable cartoon depicting a "humourous" threat to the safety of people who accept evolution.

Incidentally, since there have been two topics on UD specifically directed as replies to my comments you would think I would be somewhat welcome here as I've at least given you something to talk about.

1. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-really >
2. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....entrism >

I shall address the remainder of your comment if I am not "banninated".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you really need to do is start dropping hints here that you're also posting as Kairosfocus, Batshit 77, angryoldfatman, Joe Gallien, etc.

You'll have UD banninated clean empty in a week!   :D  :D  :D
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 13 2009,00:36

Clive < upholds > UD's double standards:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
48

Clive Hayden

01/12/2009

10:59 pm

YellowShark,

This is your last chance. Whatever BaylorBear said is irrelevant between you and Dr. Dembski. I won’t argue anymore with you, no more rabbit trails, either you apologize, or you don’t, and if you don’t, you won’t see anymore of your comments here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least he isn't spouting Lewis and Chesterton at the moment.  Maybe we can permanently distract him by supplying a continuous stream of puppets for him to ban.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 13 2009,00:51

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 12 2009,22:14)
What you really need to do is start dropping hints here that you're also posting as Kairosfocus, Batshit 77, angryoldfatman, Joe Gallien, etc.

You'll have UD banninated clean empty in a week!   :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You laugh, but that actually would happen. Most of the UD regulars at this point are long-term sock-puppets, who don't give away the game. When people joke about 'we're the only people who read that site', I only half-laugh, because we really are. If the UD mods were aware how many of their long-standing commenters were us, they'd lose it. Talking to people behind the scenes, I'd say about 75% of the regular UDers are actually us, just acting retarded.

It's actually a problem, because while I want to laugh at that site, I know three quarters of the time it's one of our guys just trying to act like a dim bulb--and usually getting away with it.
Posted by: Bueller_007 on Jan. 13 2009,00:57

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 12 2009,23:51)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 12 2009,22:14)
What you really need to do is start dropping hints here that you're also posting as Kairosfocus, Batshit 77, angryoldfatman, Joe Gallien, etc.

You'll have UD banninated clean empty in a week!   :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You laugh, but that actually would happen. Most of the UD regulars at this point are long-term sock-puppets, who don't give away the game. When people joke about 'we're the only people who read that site', I only half-laugh, because we really are. If the UD mods were aware how many of their long-standing commenters were us, they'd lose it. Talking to people behind the scenes, I'd say about 75% of the regular UDers are actually us, just acting retarded.

It's actually a problem, because while I want to laugh at that site, I know three quarters of the time it's one of our guys just trying to act like a dim bulb--and usually getting away with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get the feeling that Tribune7 may be "one of us".  
:D
Posted by: Bueller_007 on Jan. 13 2009,01:09

Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 12 2009,23:57)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My latest reply, which is awaiting moderation and not likely to see the light of day.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So just so I can be clear on this point before I apologize (and I will actually do so immediately if this comment is approved):

Clive Hayden, you are saying that half-joking threats of violence posted on the front page of *this* site are acceptable behaviour here, but half-joking insults tucked away in a comment thread of *another* website are not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 13 2009,08:00

I get the feeling that Tribune7 may be "one of us".  
:D[/quote]
BA^77! FOREVER DUDE!!!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 13 2009,14:54

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 12 2009,22:14)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 12 2009,20:53)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 12 2009,17:24)
Bannination threat. Let's hope Clive livens things up a bit.

< 33 >
Clive Hayden
01/12/2009
5:54 pm

YellowShark,

And secondly, I noticed that you said the following on another website:
“My reply (as TheYellowShark) to Dembski’s latest pile of tard is “awaiting moderation”.”

Folks can see it here:

< (link) >

“Dembski’s latest pile of tard” you say?

I expect an apology, not to me, but to Dr. Dembski, or you will be “banninated,” as ya’ll like to say :). And I don’t mind the bannination button for folks so blatantly disrespectful. And all the rest of you sock-puppets that expect privileges of commenting here with anonymity, all the while being vile on another thread, if your cover is blown and you don’t appropriately apologize, you’ll be gone too. So you’ll have to keep the bragging down and not blow your cover too soon if you want to comment here.

I'll apologize for him. WAD: he meant "horseshit." Sorry about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My reply.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have my word that--although I think it's a bit draconian to ban someone for what they say off-site--I  *shall* apologize to Dr. Dembski when an apology is forthcoming from "BaylorBear", who posted on this website an objectionable cartoon depicting a "humourous" threat to the safety of people who accept evolution.

Incidentally, since there have been two topics on UD specifically directed as replies to my comments you would think I would be somewhat welcome here as I've at least given you something to talk about.

1. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-really >
2. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....entrism >

I shall address the remainder of your comment if I am not "banninated".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you really need to do is start dropping hints here that you're also posting as Kairosfocus, Batshit 77, angryoldfatman, Joe Gallien, etc.

You'll have UD banninated clean empty in a week!   :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, that braindead bunch isn't good at sorting fact from fiction from utter bullshit, what on earth would lead you to believe they would even recognize a hint, let alone be able to understand it?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 20 2009,15:13

Barry A has had enough < JackInHofe >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JackInhofe is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


- From the very tasteless Is this Darwin's legacy thread. Jack's comment is nowhere to be seen - if it did appear did anyone catch it?
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 20 2009,15:19

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 20 2009,15:13)
Barry A has had enough < JackInHofe >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JackInhofe is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


- From the very tasteless Is this Darwin's legacy thread. Jack's comment is nowhere to be seen - if it did appear did anyone catch it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jack had the temerity to call out Andrew Sibley for being a racist bastard, and then accused Sibley of drinking from the sour Ben Stein kool-aid.

I guess Andrew couldn't handle the truth and had to go whine to Barry. Pussy.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 20 2009,15:58

I've been having fun for years posting as Kairosfocus.  I hope my cover doesn't get blown.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 20 2009,18:12

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 20 2009,15:58)
I've been having fun for years posting as Kairosfocus.  I hope my cover doesn't get blown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit Ras!  You ARE gonna get caught!  That damn Barry A is one smart SOB, and he finally stopped Jack Inhofe.

I got a couple more over there anyway.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 25 2009,06:03

WAD enforces Pitch Black:

< 9 >
William Dembski
02/24/2009
5:23 pm

To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed. His ignorance of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran theology is bad enough (JWM is Lutheran). But his attack on Christianity is out of bounds with any standards of civility acceptable on this forum.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 25 2009,12:40

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 20 2009,18:12)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 20 2009,15:58)
I've been having fun for years posting as Kairosfocus.  I hope my cover doesn't get blown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit Ras!  You ARE gonna get caught!  That damn Barry A is one smart SOB, and he finally stopped Jack Inhofe.

I got a couple more over there anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


only in public.  i bet he still likes a little Jack Inhofe in private.  Or possibly with his men's bible study group.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 25 2009,13:09

Not all puppets at UD are sock puppets:

< 12 >
Clive Hayden
02/25/2009
1:58 pm

Riddick is gone.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 25 2009,13:23

Too bad he didn't read this first.

< http://www.getreligion.org/?p=8188 >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2009,13:29

In the vein of making something good even better, I'd suggest that while you are documenting the bans that you include the final comment that pushed the UD Moderation Circus over the edge for each such, if it is available. That way, people get to see just what was so horrid that the UDMC got past their innate squeamishness over "expelling" anyone who discusses "the controversy".
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 25 2009,13:47

Riddick's first and only post at UD:

< 8 >
riddick
02/24/2009
1:46 pm

Dembski: “JWM’s no-nonsense brand of apologetics, in which he was willing to put everything on the table for discussion and to consider all evidence pro and con on any topic,”

Everything, it appears, except for his Reformed theology. “Christianity” is an “ism,” an ideology, one opposed to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Perhaps someday those who are critical of Darwinism will be as critical of their own cherished assumptions.
Posted by: AmandaHuginKiss on Feb. 25 2009,16:17

Do I get an "I am with the (Silent) Banned" t-shirt? I haven't checked back* but from last night (Aussie time) I had three message still on moderation and the last was pretty snarky.

Paraphrasing, my messages was after StephenB had declared victory over the atheists

Stephen,

How can you declare victory when you have messages awaiting moderation. You point to a Divine set of moral laws but have failed to demonstrate that they exist in the real world. I have discussed how morals change across Christians today and have changed through time and all you have done is said that I am wrong without saying where i am wrong.

* More for my own sanity. It is better to let the professionals to dip into the TARD.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 25 2009,16:27

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 25 2009,17:17)
Do I get an "I am with the (Silent) Banned" t-shirt? I haven't checked back* but from last night (Aussie time) I had three message still on moderation and the last was pretty snarky.

Paraphrasing, my messages was after StephenB had declared victory over the atheists

Stephen,

How can you declare victory when you have messages awaiting moderation. You point to a Divine set of moral laws but have failed to demonstrate that they exist in the real world. I have discussed how morals change across Christians today and have changed through time and all you have done is said that I am wrong without saying where i am wrong.

* More for my own sanity. It is better to let the professionals to dip into the TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, amateurs may not know their TARD limits.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 25 2009,16:30

Professional dippers? Huh. Wonder what kind of pay scale that profession professes to have.

Or is it that people who do that too much wind up needing professional help of another kind? :p  :O
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 25 2009,16:39

Quote (khan @ Feb. 25 2009,16:27)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 25 2009,17:17)
Do I get an "I am with the (Silent) Banned" t-shirt? I haven't checked back* but from last night (Aussie time) I had three message still on moderation and the last was pretty snarky.

Paraphrasing, my messages was after StephenB had declared victory over the atheists

Stephen,

How can you declare victory when you have messages awaiting moderation. You point to a Divine set of moral laws but have failed to demonstrate that they exist in the real world. I have discussed how morals change across Christians today and have changed through time and all you have done is said that I am wrong without saying where i am wrong.

* More for my own sanity. It is better to let the professionals to dip into the TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, amateurs may not know their TARD limits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 13 2009,22:44

UD claims a new, open moderation policy, tolerant of dissent of all kinds. I attempted to log on to congratulate them.

UD refuses my attempts to log in - although clearly remembers me, because attempts to reestablish the account as Reciprocating Bill are met with a message that the user name and email address are already taken. Bob O'H has had the same experience.

Cowards.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 14 2009,08:49

Seeing the new dawn at UD (when the cloak fell from Dr Dr D to Barry, originally) and not wishing to be seen as a sock puppet, I tried requesting a replacement password on my existing but non-functional UD account (Alan Fox).

No go.

So I tried re-registering as Alan Fox II. I am up to Alan Fox IV. Their registration still seems mighty cranky, and still no go. Maybe Clive will take note and expedite my request.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 14 2009,09:05

I've now successfully created a new user there named Reciprocating_Bill.  I haven't yet attempted to post a comment.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 14 2009,09:32

BarryA said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Without claiming significance anything resembling PZ's, I do have a history of critical comments regarding UD, Barry Arrington in particular, Uncommonly Denyse, etc. Not to mention adolescent name calling. I've posted the following comment at UD, which is in moderation:

"Congratulations on your new moderation policy. There can be a cooperative aspect to even competitive contests (e.g., boxing matches have ground rules that are cooperatively observed) and it will be interesting to observe whether that sort of cooperative/competitive exchange can be sustained at UD."

I like to think that UD's new policy, in addition to reflecting new management, is also in response to the the ridiculative selection pressures we've exerted here.

Let's watch.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 14 2009,09:50

New Moderation Policy = Same as The Old Moderation Policy... :(

They refuse to admit Jack Inhofe - even though he posted after the new policy was announced.

Perhaps someone should write a book about UD - they could call it "Lies, and the Lying Liars That Tell Them."

Yeah Barry - I'm talking to you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2009,09:51

I've registered as "Paley's Digital Doubleheaded Platonic Dildo".  Barry and Clive have been double teaming whining to Gil Dodgen to let me through, but Gil is upset because I said something about chess queens in a previous email and Bill got involved because there someone used the word "gaylord" in a post and it tripped the spamfilter CSI-alarm and a predesigned Oracle performed a directed partitioned search on a predesigned segment of the universe probability string and proved, without any reasonable shred of doubt, addressed in 20.365-9 and following before during and completely thereafter, that Joshua did indeed fit the battle of Jericho.  it was an unsurprising result to those of us who you know have been around a bunch of the argument regarding design but it really blew the one guy who we think is a materialist right out of the seat.  he couldn't believe out and everyone got saved.

i hope they allow Paley's Digital Doubleheaded Platonic Dildo but I have a feeling that Victorian Dad ain't going to dig it, mostly, man.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,08:20

My first post as Reciprocating_Bill at UD has gone through after a long wait in the moderation queue. My < second comment > appeared immediately.

I therefore retract my "cowards" comment, above.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Mar. 15 2009,11:18

I just registered and submitted this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First of all, I am delighted to see the change in moderation policy.

Joseph    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That said to falsify ID in the domain of evolution all one has to do is demonstrate that the organism/ obeject/ event in question can be reduced to matter and energy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is basically the reason why ID is not considered to be science. 'Falsifiable' means that there is a prediction or test that can be made and performed that could give two results. From one you would conclude that the theory has been disproven, from the other one would conclude that the theory has not so far been disproven. A large part of science is thinking up the exceptional cases and then actually putting your theory to the test, in effect trying to disprove your own theory. I am not aware of anyone connected with ID who has actually done this, or even proposed a realistic test that would differentiate between ID and the modern evolutionary theory.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4.5 billion years does not seem to be enough.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have recently been making a scale drawing of a geological timeline for my students and one thing that comes out clearly is just how long 4.5 billion years is. To represent the last 5000 years of human history by a postage-stamp sized photo I would need a strip of paper over 10 miles long. How long would you consider long enough, and what is your reasoning (no phoney statistics, please)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got the message that it is awaiting moderation.

I followed that up with a second post:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So when our anti ID friends come here, the onus is on them to present data that contradicts our position.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The onus is on you to clearly state what possible data would contradict your position, then to attempt to find it yourself. That is what scientists do. Note the word 'possible'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We'll see what happens.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 15 2009,11:57

In our hallway at school, there was once (it had to be taken down for painting and has yet to be restored) an interesting graphical representation of the history of life on earth.

At the far end, a paper was taped to the end wall representing the formation of the earth. Doc then counted out the floor tiles (12" x 12") and divided up the hallway. Each tile turned out to represent about 300 million years. Along one side of the hallway were markers representing the first evidence of bacteria, eukaryotes, multi-cellular eukaryotes, animals, mammals, etc etc.

The appearance of modern humans about a thumbnail width from the edge of the last tile (worked out to be about 6' from the near end of the hall) really puts things in perspective. Standing at that line and gazing down the history of the earth like that pretty much elicits just whispered obscenities.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 15 2009,12:02

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,09:20)
My first post as Reciprocating_Bill at UD has gone through after a long wait in the moderation queue. My < second comment > appeared immediately.

I therefore retract my "cowards" comment, above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not how to do it.

You're supposed to edit it out and not mention it again.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,12:03

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 15 2009,12:57)
In our hallway at school, there was once (it had to be taken down for painting and has yet to be restored) an interesting graphical representation of the history of life on earth.

At the far end, a paper was taped to the end wall representing the formation of the earth. Doc then counted out the floor tiles (12" x 12") and divided up the hallway. Each tile turned out to represent about 300 million years. Along one side of the hallway were markers representing the first evidence of bacteria, eukaryotes, multi-cellular eukaryotes, animals, mammals, etc etc.

The appearance of modern humans about a thumbnail width from the edge of the last tile (worked out to be about 6' from the near end of the hall) really puts things in perspective. Standing at that line and gazing down the history of the earth like that pretty much elicits just whispered obscenities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always liked Gould's observation:

“Consider the earth’s history as the old measure of the English yard, the distance from the king’s nose to the tip of his outstretched hand.  One stroke of a nail file on his middle finger erases human history.”

Even Mark Twain likened the entire span human history to the skin of paint on the top of the knob at the summit of the Eiffel Tower (in his essay, Was the World Mad for Man?).
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 15 2009,12:13

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,08:20)
My first post as Reciprocating_Bill at UD has gone through after a long wait in the moderation queue. My < second comment > appeared immediately.

I therefore retract my "cowards" comment, above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like I'm still too scary, though.  I've just put up a "testing" comment.

Grrr.  Grrrr, grrrrr.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,12:30

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 15 2009,13:13)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,08:20)
My first post as Reciprocating_Bill at UD has gone through after a long wait in the moderation queue. My < second comment > appeared immediately.

I therefore retract my "cowards" comment, above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like I'm still too scary, though.  I've just put up a "testing" comment.

Grrr.  Grrrr, grrrrr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because you, sir, are actually a scientist. I'm articulate hot air.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 15 2009,12:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,12:30)
I'm articulate hot air.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, basically, you are the hyper-skeptical evo-mat version of Kairosfocus.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,13:14

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 15 2009,13:44)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,12:30)
I'm articulate hot air.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, basically, you are the hyper-skeptical evo-mat version of Kairosfocus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No way. I don't have his stamina.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,15:59

The reversals don't get much stranger. Reciprocating_Bill is posting at UD. DaveScot is banned:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note to UD Contributors
< Barry Arrington >

The moderation policy does not apply to you; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves.  DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 15 2009,16:16

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 15 2009,11:57)
In our hallway at school, there was once (it had to be taken down for painting and has yet to be restored) an interesting graphical representation of the history of life on earth.

At the far end, a paper was taped to the end wall representing the formation of the earth. Doc then counted out the floor tiles (12" x 12") and divided up the hallway. Each tile turned out to represent about 300 million years. Along one side of the hallway were markers representing the first evidence of bacteria, eukaryotes, multi-cellular eukaryotes, animals, mammals, etc etc.

The appearance of modern humans about a thumbnail width from the edge of the last tile (worked out to be about 6' from the near end of the hall) really puts things in perspective. Standing at that line and gazing down the history of the earth like that pretty much elicits just whispered obscenities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For future use in your classroom, you can get the same sort of response by having the students make a timeline like that on adding machine paper.  It's long, cheap, and a great visual aid.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 15 2009,16:22

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,10:59)
The reversals don't get much stranger. Reciprocating_Bill is posting at UD. DaveScot is banned:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note to UD Contributors
< Barry Arrington >

The moderation policy does not apply to you; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves.  DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where can they go from here except further along the road to obscurity? Dave Springer could be a real tosser, but occasionally he could show a little class.

i never thought I would say this but...

Farewell, Dave and glad to see your scruples got the better of you.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 15 2009,16:34

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 15 2009,16:22)
i never thought I would say this but...

Farewell, Dave and glad to see your scruples got the better of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I second your emotion...
He was saved from the darkside at the end.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,16:46

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 15 2009,17:34)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 15 2009,16:22)
i never thought I would say this but...

Farewell, Dave and glad to see your scruples got the better of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I second your emotion...
He was saved from the darkside at the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've been keeping this from you, 'Dog. DaveScot is your father.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 15 2009,16:54

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,16:46)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 15 2009,17:34)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 15 2009,16:22)
i never thought I would say this but...

Farewell, Dave and glad to see your scruples got the better of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I second your emotion...
He was saved from the darkside at the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've been keeping this from you, Dog. DaveScot is your father.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, Bill, with Dave gone, you are going to have to get a new avatar.  So will GCT.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 15 2009,17:08

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,16:46)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 15 2009,17:34)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 15 2009,16:22)
i never thought I would say this but...

Farewell, Dave and glad to see your scruples got the better of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I second your emotion...
He was saved from the darkside at the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've been keeping this from you, 'Dog. DaveScot is your father.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 15 2009,17:12

DaveScot banned from UD?

Words fail me.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 15 2009,17:13

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 15 2009,17:12)
DaveScot banned from UD?

Words fail me.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you just signed on.... you have a LOT of catching up to do!  See you in a couple of days dude!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 15 2009,17:25

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 15 2009,17:54)
You know, Bill, with Dave gone, you are going to have to get a new avatar.  So will GCT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mmmm. I'm guessing you're thinking it depicts the loudspeaker in the ceiling.

Actually, it depicts a loudspeaker in my vintage stereo system. A University "reciprocating flare" midrange compression driver and horn.

"Reciprocating Bill" was a name I originally devised for the Vintage Asylum audio forum.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 18 2009,19:37

In memoriam:

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that butt you got
Make Me so horney
Ooh, rump of smooth skin
You say you wanna get in my benz
Well use me use me cuz you aint that average groupy

I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
She's Sweat,Wet, got it goin like a turbo vette

I'm tired of magazines
Saying flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back

So Fellas (yeah) Fellas(yeah)
Has your girlfriend got the butt (hell yeah)
Well shake it, shake it, shake it, shake it, shake that healthy butt
Baby got back

(LA face with Oakland booty)

I like'em round and big
And when I'm throwin a gig
I just can't help myself
I'm actin like an animal
Now here's my scandal

I wanna get you home
And UH, double up UH UH
I aint talkin bout playboy
Cuz silicone parts were made for toys
I wannem real thick and juicy
So find that juicy double
Mixalot's in trouble
Beggin for a piece of that bubble
So I'm lookin' at rock videos
Knockin these bimbos walkin like hoes
You can have them bimbos
I'll keep my women like Flo Jo
A word to the thick soul sistas
I wanna get with ya
I won't cus or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna --
Til the break of dawn
Baby Got it goin on
Alot of pimps won't like this song
Cuz them punks lie to hit it and quit it
But I'd rather stay and play
Cuz I'm long and I'm strong
And I'm down to get the friction on

So ladies (yeah), Ladies (yeah)
Do you wanna roll in my Mercedes (yeah)
Then turn around
Stick it out
Even white boys got to shout
Baby got back

(LA face with the Oakland booty)

Yeah baby
When it comes to females
Cosmo ain't got nothin to do with my selection
36-24-36
Only if she's 5'3"

So your girlfriend throws a Honda
Playin workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups, but please don't lose that butt
Some brothers wanna play that hard role
And tell you that the butt ain't gold
So they toss it and leave it
And I pull up quick to retrieve it
So cosmo says you're fat
Well I ain't down with that
Cuz your waste is small and your curves are kickin
And I'm thinkin bout stickin
To the beanpole dames in the magazines
You aint it miss thing
Give me a sista I can't resist her
Red beans and rice did miss her
Some knucklehead tried to dis
Cuz his girls were on my list
He had game but he chose to hit 'em
And pulled up quick to get with 'em
So ladies if the butt is round
And you wanna triple X throw down
Dial 1-900-MIXALOT and kick them nasty thoughts
Baby got back
Baby got back
Little in tha middle but she got much back x4
Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 18 2009,22:02

My god that was a great song.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Mar. 19 2009,11:41

< Valaquesse > is no longer with them, and Clive has discovered how to operate the Loudspeaker In The Ceiling.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 19 2009,12:07

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 19 2009,11:41)
< Valaquesse > is no longer with them, and Clive has discovered how to operate the Loudspeaker In The Ceiling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, per usual, IDiots like KF proceed immediately to argue with an empty chair.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 19 2009,16:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 19 2009,13:07)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 19 2009,11:41)
< Valaquesse > is no longer with them, and Clive has discovered how to operate the Loudspeaker In The Ceiling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, per usual, IDiots like KF proceed immediately to argue with an empty chair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mostly the chair wins anyway.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 20 2009,21:27

RTH's catch:

Clean up on isle Clive:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-309134 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5

iconofid

03/20/2009

1:34 pm
Denise O’Leary:

notedscholar, you seem to be writing about a different story.

Am I the only one confused here? Who is “notedscholar”?

6

Clive Hayden

03/20/2009

4:28 pm
iconofid,

I removed noted scholar’s comment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 22 2009,08:07

UD enunciated a new moderation policy. But they were lying.

The following question was posed on UD, vis their new moderation policy:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 44 >
CannuckianYankee
03/13/2009
8:46 pm

I’m just wondering Clive,

Let’s say a person such as, oh, PZ Meyers wanted to post here and he kept his language cordial and non-insulting, would he be welcome to post? I would be interested in reading what he has to say without all the hyperbole that is a part of his language in his own blog. I might enjoy seeing how others here would challenge him. Maybe I’m ignorant, but has he ever posted here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The response came from Barry Arrington hisself:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 50 >
Barry Arrington
03/13/2009
10:41 pm

I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Up-thread, I < explicitly > likened myself to PZ (with appropriate humility, as I couldn't hold his mollusks when it comes to ridiculing UD and ID), and recalled my previous derision of BarryA, Uncommonly Denyse and others at UD. Not to mention my employment of juvenile humor of all variety at their expense. In short, when I began posting at UD, I arrived on their doorstep in a basket with a note pinned to my blanket, "test case."  

At UD, I kept my language "cordial and non-insulting," although the same cannot be said about the regulars there. And I raised a serious point - none is more central to the (non)validity of ID as a scientific project - and scrupulously conformed to their moderation policy as I pressed that point.

I am now officially banned, nonetheless:


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
330
Clive Hayden
03/21/2009
11:45 pm
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reciprocating Bill.

“Given that my participation has been serious and respectful…”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?

You said this yourself:

“Without claiming significance anything resembling PZ’s [Myers], I do have a history of critical comments regarding UD, Barry Arrington in particular, Uncommonly Denyse, etc. Not to mention adolescent name calling….I like to think that UD’s new policy, in addition to reflecting new management, is also in response to the the ridiculative selection pressures we’ve exerted here….Let’s watch.”

Bye Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clive has banned me because of comments I made in advance of this entire experiment, on a site other than UD. Comments that explicitly cite BarryA's invitation to persons with an extra-UD history and proclivity similar to PZ's to post there. Banned without regard to my scrupulous observance of their new moderation rules (nothing profane, no vicious personal attacks).

Banned because the geniuses at UD are unable to specify an entailment that arises from ID and an empirical test of said entailment such that it places ID at risk of disconfirmation. Banned to suppress the reoccurance of that embarrassing request.

Their new moderation policy is a lie.

In other news, Dog bites Man. Film at eleven.

Posted by: dvunkannon on Mar. 27 2009,18:20

Pendulum seems to have fallen on his, erm... sword. Last two comments are in the Phantom Zone. They went something like

to DLH -  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PSSI has 270 signatures? Only 2,662,055 to go in the AMA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



to David Kellogg -  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, "implicit latching" started as simply avoidance behavior, but it was such a gem of tiki bar science vocaulary that I wanted to save it, and it fit perfectly into the bug/feature analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 27 2009,18:48

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 27 2009,18:20)
Pendulum seems to have fallen on his, erm... sword. Last two comments are in the Phantom Zone. They went something like

to DLH -  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PSSI has 270 signatures? Only 2,662,055 to go in the AMA!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



to David Kellogg -  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, "implicit latching" started as simply avoidance behavior, but it was such a gem of tiki bar science vocaulary that I wanted to save it, and it fit perfectly into the bug/feature analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice.
Posted by: 1of63 on April 08 2009,12:32

Just thought I'd mention a possible or impending bannination of Seversky over on UD.

It's not a formal ban - not yet at least - but posts are being held in moderation until they disappear upthread.  Or they just disappear.

The last one was at 173 on the Shermer thread.  I think it was quite mild compared with what the likes of Joe put out.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
vjtorley @ 166  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   As regards the reliability of scientific reasoning: you cite the commonality of our empirical experience, and our ability to test our theories as a warrant for science. But what I’m more worried about is: how do we know that we’re even asking the right questions in the first place? How do we know that our science is not full of huge, gaping logical flaws that we’ve never noticed? That’s what I mean when I say that an atheist has no good reason to simply assume the reliability of our speculative reasoning. For there are 101 ways in which it could go off the rails in matters speculative - and we’d never know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would be wary about using the word “never”.

The problem we face as a species in trying to understand the world we see around us is that, if we cannot rely on divine revelation to meet all our epistemological needs, we are going to have to try and work it out for ourselves.

Plainly, the existing religious texts cannot help. The Bible, for example, does not include something equivalent to a diagnostic and therapeutic manual for the identification and treatment of all the illnesses to which the human body is prone. The Koran does not contain the blueprints and operating principles of combustion engines or cell phones. The Bhagavad Gita does not explain how to build and program computers.

All this hard-won knowledge - and much more - we have had to gather for ourselves. Agreed, it is a far from perfect process. There have been many false starts, fruitless detours and dead-ends along the way. But the fact is we have made progress, it is something we have done for ourselves and that - admittedly limited - success is a good enough reason for us to continue what we are doing until we find it no longer works.

I think, however, you raise pertinent questions when you ask how do we know that our science is not full of gaping holes, how do we know that we are asking the right questions in the first place? The simple answer is that we do not. But we have to start somewhere - it doesn’t really matter where - study what we see, concoct some sort of an explanation, test it and take it from there, where we take it being dependent on the results.

The ongoing discussion about the cosmological argument is a case in point. We observe a world which is apparently the product of long chains of cause and effect which stretch back into the mists of time. An infinite causal chain, however, is felt to be unacceptable for reasons already given. It is argued that the only conceivable alternative is an uncaused First Cause, even though that also has problems. Given that the two candidate answers are equally unsatisfactory, albeit for different reasons, could the solution be, as you have suggested, that we are asking the wrong questions?

Certainly the evidence we have gathered so far points towards our Universe having some sort of beginning but, as Nakashima has pointed out, if we think circular rather than linear we can have a causal chain which has no beginning. While it may not be the correct solution it does, at least, represent an attempt to get round the present impasse by ‘thinking outside the box’.

As an agnostic atheist my view is that it is perfectly acceptable to say that we simply don’t know. I find the concept of an infinite causal chain unsatisfactory although I do not see a Universe that was designed to satisfy my personal needs. An uncaused First Cause is equally unsatisfactory because it sounds too much like special pleading and an attempt to cut off all further debate by fiat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Personally, I was prepared to give Clive and Barry the benefit of the doubt what with that ringing Churchillian declaration of 'we can take it' from BArrington.  Now,I think they're full of it
Posted by: dvunkannon on April 17 2009,12:19

I think Nakashima has just been silently banninated, either for saying StephenB is living in an intellectual time warp (on the Shermer thread), or for pushing GilDodgen about human competitve algorithms (on the Texas thread).

Bummer, considering all the nice things I just said about Clive.

I'll try again over the weekend to log back in over there, but very low hopes of success.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 17 2009,12:24

Quote (dvunkannon @ April 17 2009,12:19)
I think Nakashima has just been silently banninated, either for saying StephenB is living in an intellectual time warp (on the Shermer thread), or for pushing GilDodgen about human competitve algorithms (on the Texas thread).

Bummer, considering all the nice things I just said about Clive.

I'll try again over the weekend to log back in over there, but very low hopes of success.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might be ok, as long as you didn't comment about Gil's Frilly Shirt Love...
Posted by: dvunkannon on April 17 2009,14:12

Quote (J-Dog @ April 17 2009,13:24)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 17 2009,12:19)
I think Nakashima has just been silently banninated, either for saying StephenB is living in an intellectual time warp (on the Shermer thread), or for pushing GilDodgen about human competitve algorithms (on the Texas thread).

Bummer, considering all the nice things I just said about Clive.

I'll try again over the weekend to log back in over there, but very low hopes of success.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might be ok, as long as you didn't comment about Gil's Frilly Shirt Love...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may have spoken too soon, Nakashima is back online.

Clive, if it was you, thanks!
Posted by: Hermagoras on April 19 2009,18:45

Man, I wish I'd saved this.  Denyse deleted a comment on her latest < screed >.  You'll see two comments in a row from Denyse.  Missing between them is a comment from me that pointed out the irony in this sentence:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Kellogg does not sound like he has ever had to deal with a news deadline or with people who persistently misrepresent/undeerrepresent/overrepresent themselves - or are just plain confused and have no idea what information would be useful or how to convey it, or what difference the information would make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gently suggested that she was trying to bait me to say something about the site.  She removed the comment.  I should have anticipated that.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 19 2009,21:21

Quote (Hermagoras @ April 19 2009,19:45)
Man, I wish I'd saved this.  Denyse deleted a comment on her latest < screed >.  You'll see two comments in a row from Denyse.  Missing between them is a comment from me that pointed out the irony in this sentence:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Kellogg does not sound like he has ever had to deal with a news deadline or with people who persistently misrepresent/undeerrepresent/overrepresent themselves - or are just plain confused and have no idea what information would be useful or how to convey it, or what difference the information would make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gently suggested that she was trying to bait me to say something about the site.  She removed the comment.  I should have anticipated that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You obviously need to review the newly articulated moderation policy:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since you weren't defamatory or profane, and didn't engage in vicious personal attack, the Nannyplanatory Filter must have concluded that you didn't say pretty much what you want.  

That caused you to be < rude >, near as I can figure, which as you can plainly see above is against...well isn't against the policy, but...

Clive? Nanny Clive?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 24 2009,06:36

Moderation decisions at UD are not among those grounded in absolute morality:

< BarryA >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position …if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The other < BarryA >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allan, I deleted your comment about the Tao, becaue you posted it in a deliberate attempt to confuse and obfuscate. That’s not nice. Please don’t do it again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 25 2009,20:06

We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

< 110 >
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.

Here follows the exchange that resulted in Nakashima's ejection. As may be seen, it includes either a vicious personal attack, is defamatory, or is profane (I can't seem tell which):

BarryA said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JTaylor, re your [47]. In my [39] I demonstrate that explaining the existence of the mind is impossible even in principle for the materialist but not for the ID theorist. You do not offer even a scintilla of a rebuttal to that claim. Instead, you change the subject. Is that all you’ve got? Can I conclude from your silence regarding the basic premise of the original post and your attempt to change the subject, that you’ve got nothing to say, that you’ve been struck dumb by the scintillating brilliance of my reasoning [it’s a joke, lighten up will ya]?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about using scintilla and scintillating in the same paragraph. In any event, Nakashima replied:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you for making your sense of humor clearer to me. I now understand that your previous closed comment post declaring victory over dumbstruck materialists was meant to be humor, or perhaps ’street theater’. I know a joke loses something if it has to be explained, but do I now understand you correctly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry's appreciation of levity is apparently a one-way affair.

(Any others here wonder just what shade of crimson Barry turns when he does this?)

Posted by: keiths on April 25 2009,20:10

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

< 110 >
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mr Arrington,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JTaylor, re your [47]. In my [39] I demonstrate that explaining the existence of the mind is impossible even in principle for the materialist but not for the ID theorist. You do not offer even a scintilla of a rebuttal to that claim. Instead, you change the subject. Is that all you’ve got? Can I conclude from your silence regarding the basic premise of the original post and your attempt to change the subject, that you’ve got nothing to say, that you’ve been struck dumb by the scintillating brilliance of my reasoning [it’s a joke, lighten up will ya]?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for making your sense of humor clearer to me. I now understand that your previous closed comment post declaring victory over dumbstruck materialists was meant to be humor, or perhaps ’street theater’. I know a joke loses something if it has to be explained, but do I now understand you correctly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 25 2009,20:20

Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,21:10)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

< 110 >
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was my guess, keiths. See my edited post above yours.

I still have trouble superimposing this pompous, red-faced control freak upon the pleasant, chatty voice we heard in the broadcast in which you participated.
Posted by: dvunkannon on April 25 2009,20:35

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,21:20)
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,21:10)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

< 110 >
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was my guess, keiths. See my edited post above yours.

I still have trouble superimposing this pompous, red-faced control freak upon the pleasant, chatty voice we heard in the broadcast in which you participated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I'll vote for the off-topic comment in which Nakashima congratulated Rybczynski on her new fossil seal.
Posted by: keiths on April 25 2009,21:28

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:20)
 
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,21:10)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

< 110 >
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was my guess, keiths. See my edited post above yours.

I still have trouble superimposing this pompous, red-faced control freak upon the pleasant, chatty voice we heard in the broadcast in which you participated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it's really hard to reconcile the two Barrys.  Maybe there's something about the Intertubes that brings out the worst in him, or perhaps he dons his "public face" on the radio, but not, for some reason, at UD.
Posted by: dvunkannon on April 25 2009,22:03

Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,22:28)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:20)
 
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,21:10)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,18:06)
We settle into that familiar, old-timey UD rhythm:

< 110 >
Barry Arrington
04/25/2009
7:53 pm

Nakashima is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what pushed Barry over the edge.  Was it this...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was my guess, keiths. See my edited post above yours.

I still have trouble superimposing this pompous, red-faced control freak upon the pleasant, chatty voice we heard in the broadcast in which you participated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it's really hard to reconcile the two Barrys.  Maybe there's something about the Intertubes that brings out the worst in him, or perhaps he dons his "public face" on the radio, but not, for some reason, at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm hoping Barry will respond with an explanation of the bannination. If the reason was a post accusing him of having a sense of humor - now that would be funny!
Posted by: keiths on April 26 2009,09:22

Nakashima-san is back in the game:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 131 >

Barry Arrington
04/26/2009
9:02 am

I will bow to vox populi from both sides in regard to Nakashima. Nakashima you are un-banned, but be careful to keep your comments on the non-personal level. You will be watched closely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 26 2009,19:04

The revolving door spins ever faster:

< 31 >
Barry Arrington
04/26/2009
12:19 pm

Trib 7 re your [24]: Nakashima has been unbooted, and Mirrortothesun is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 26 2009,21:28

That old-timey UD IS back! Witness the Hidden Obliviation of Mauka's comments from the < Emergence Redux > thread - even as some of the opening post is addressed to him. I do believe that amounts to ID poofery. But his shadow remains...:

...Mauka claims that “individuals with better brains tend to survive and reproduce better than those with addled brains,”...

...mauka’s list of ‘advantages and disadvantages’ is a joke. Even ignoring the butchering of the rationales and skewed presentation, it falls apart for one clear reason...

...Mauka’s list is a mess from start to finish...

...you can go through each of mauka’s questions and come up with radically different results....

Well, actually, you can't go on through each of his questions. They're gone. Way to prevail in discussion, Barry! Obliviate the participants! Particularly entertaining is reading Avonwatches @3 commenting upon Mauka's comment @4. My God, it's emergent!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 26 2009,22:11

'Harry Barrington' never even saw the light of day.
Posted by: keiths on April 26 2009,23:03

That's because Harry is a rude bastard.  I < asked him yesterday > where he got that great Heddle quote and he never replied.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 26 2009,23:09

Quote (keiths @ April 26 2009,23:03)
That's because Harry is a rude bastard.  I < asked him yesterday > where he got that great Heddle quote and he never replied.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Derial over, Homo. >

:angry:
Posted by: keiths on April 26 2009,23:31

Too funny.  It sounds like a South Park episode.
Posted by: keiths on April 27 2009,03:59

vjtorley responds to a ghost post:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 9 >

vjtorley
04/27/2009
12:35 am

mauka

I think your comments deserve special attention, and I would like to thank you for posting them again, on this thread.

<followed by 2,000 words in response to a post by mauka that is no longer there>

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 27 2009,06:47

To be, or not to be:

< 63 >
Barry Arrington
04/26/2009
11:37 pm

Hamlet is no longer with us. After repeated warnings to stop beating Gil personally, he just could not seem to help himself.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 27 2009,08:12

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 27 2009,06:47)
To be, or not to be:

< 63 >
Barry Arrington
04/26/2009
11:37 pm

Hamlet is no longer with us. After repeated warnings to stop beating Gil personally, he just could not seem to help himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


QUOTE]After repeated warnings to stop beating Gil personally, he just could not seem to help himself[/QUOTE]

Isn't this the same justification that Barry used when banning Jack Inhoffe?
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 27 2009,08:33

Silent Bannination?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
14
Diffaxial
04/27/2009
6:57 am
vjtorley wrote:

mauka

I think your comments deserve special attention, and I would like to thank you for posting them again, on this thread.

vjtorley,

They do deserve attention. Your sincere thanks to Mauka, and your detailed response, indicate that they have merit as a move in the current discourse.

However, apparently one of the moderators also thinks they are worthy of special attention and has chosen to delete them, along with several comments he posted on other threads. Mauka informs me that since then his new comments have not been appearing. In essence he has been silently banned. Surely you above all understand that genuine discourse is impossible when discussants on one side of an issue (and one side only) are sitting on trap doors that may open at any time at the whim of the other parties.

That arrangement disinclines me to engage your complex arguments much further. Writings posts at this level is hard work and it is dismaying to see them disappear unpredictably into the void due to irritable moderation that is ungoverned by consistently applied principles.

Mauka asked me to convey that he would like to respond to your arguments if and when his comments start appearing again, along with assurances from the moderators that they will not be arbitrarily purged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >
Posted by: dvunkannon on April 27 2009,13:45

I think Joseph used to have a comment 192 on the Materialist poofery thread, which has evaporated. Just feces flinging, but a missed opportunity for Barry to show how 'even handed' he is.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 27 2009,15:14

Barry just can't bring hisself to do the right thing:

< 28 >
Barry Arrington
04/27/2009
2:09 pm

Joseph, you are on the edge of being booted. Knock it off.
Posted by: keiths on April 27 2009,16:24

Hazel < comments on mauka's silent bannination >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I’m going to stand with Diffaxial on this one. There is no reason, based on the stated moderation policy, for mauka’s posts to have been deleted, and it is certainly unreasonable for that to happen without any acknowledgment or explanation.

So, and this may not make any difference to anyone, I think I’ll abstain from posting until this situation is cleared up, and until I feel comfortable that the stated moderation policy will be followed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry, of course, has ignored this.  If anything, he's probably hoping that he'll be able to get rid of hazel at the same time as mauka, if he just sits tight and waits for things to blow over.

I hope someone 'reminds' him (and everyone else) that he hasn't explained mauka's bannination.

Allen MacNeill also lodges a protest:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not knowing (as usual) what mauka’s comments were that were deleted (nor even if this has actually been the case) leaves everyone wondering if their comments will be arbitrarily deleted at the whim of this website’s moderators.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on April 28 2009,20:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 133 >

Allen_MacNeill
04/28/2009
8:22 pm

Why is Dave Wisker in permanent moderation? As far as I can tell, his comments have always adhered to the rules of courtesy and argumentation supported by evidence outlined in the moderation rules. Indeed, his comments have often been more concise and to the point than mine, and are at least the intellectual equivalent of those posted by David Kellogg and Nakashima. Once again I am forced to ask, is there a double standard at work here, and if so, why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on April 28 2009,21:43

Hazel follows up:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 134 >

hazel
04/28/2009
8:30 pm

On a related note, Upright Biped writes,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps the metaphysical materialists on this thread would venture to answer an inconsistency in their conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps if the person who was defending materialism hadn’t had his posts inexplicably deleted you might still have a materialist to try to answer that question.

Back to waiting for consistent moderation …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on April 28 2009,21:50

This is getting good. Sal responds to Allen, offering this pathetic rationalization of unfair moderation practices:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 135 >

scordova
04/28/2009
9:36 pm



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again I am forced to ask, is there a double standard at work here, and if so, why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Allen,

I’m not involved in decisions as to who is placed in the moderation queue, but if I may offer a consideration in terms of pure numbers.

In order for UD to succeed as a weblog serving the ID community, some equalization of numbers of participants in the comment section should be in order.

The weblog could be shut down by swarming tactics, and such attempts have been made.

I think a 60/40 balance (60 pro-ID, 40 anti-ID) would keep UD alive. If that balance is destroyed, I think readership will fall off.

These informal discussions have their value, but I don’t consider internet blogs necessarily the best venue for careful scholarly discussion.

So, I would not fault the moderators with double standards. The essentially serve as editors for the benefit of our readers.

As a matter of experience, ID proponents will lose the numbers game quite easily if there were not any filtering.

Many of our readers come here to hear the pro-ID position, and we have some obligation to deliver that.

Consider that I created a thread like the one regarding David Abel’s paper. I was swarmed with almost 100-200 opposing postings, most of which were directed at me. Even if I felt competent to answer many of the biggest concerns, it’s a fairly substantial workload.

For the record, I’ve not deleted any comments from this thread.

So I plead a litter forebearance in light of the fact that the ID proponents are probably outnumbered on the net. My personal expeirience puts the figure at about 20 to 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on April 28 2009,22:05

In an attempt to soften up Allen, Sal edits the above comment, adding this at the end:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember we are vastly outnumbered by qualified evolutionary biologists like yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KCdgw on April 28 2009,22:22

Just for the record:

< Barry Arrington: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave Wisker re your [11]. Are you denying the thrust of Stuart’s comment — the evo pyscho purports to explain a behavior and its opposite with equal ease? Surely not; that proposition is so well established as to be almost a truism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My reply (now in moderation 3 hours):

< Dave Wisker: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Barry,
I’m not an expert on evolutionary psychology, but I do know a few things:
1. I don’t think Stuart will be able to find an evolutionary psychologist who believes that genes control all our behavior.
2. What you think is a truism is, in reality, a ridiculous misrepresentation of the discipline.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



KC
Posted by: keiths on April 30 2009,19:30

Clive attacks Allen MacNeill, and Diffaxial calls him on it:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 25 >

Diffaxial
04/30/2009
6:51 pm

Clive:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find your rhetoric to be at a rather junior high level. I think you’re a large repository of information, but a rather small shack of actual argument. I’m baffled that you teach at any college, to be honest. I hope you only present information to the students, and not arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here we have the moderator himself, charged to discourage personalized comments, himself directly wielding insults from within the secure confines of his moderation box.

Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dvunkannon on May 01 2009,08:48

Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,20:30)
Clive attacks Allen MacNeill, and Diffaxial calls him on it:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 25 >

Diffaxial
04/30/2009
6:51 pm

Clive:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find your rhetoric to be at a rather junior high level. I think you’re a large repository of information, but a rather small shack of actual argument. I’m baffled that you teach at any college, to be honest. I hope you only present information to the students, and not arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here we have the moderator himself, charged to discourage personalized comments, himself directly wielding insults from within the secure confines of his moderation box.

Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair to Clive (did I just say that?), Allen was being pretty asinine at that point, and later apologized. I think Allen has veered several times recently just to the line or maybe a squeek over it. I'm surprised he hasn't been warned/threatened.
Posted by: keiths on May 02 2009,15:57

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 01 2009,06:48)
 
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,20:30)
Clive attacks Allen MacNeill, and Diffaxial calls him on it:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 25 >

Diffaxial
04/30/2009
6:51 pm

Clive:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find your rhetoric to be at a rather junior high level. I think you’re a large repository of information, but a rather small shack of actual argument. I’m baffled that you teach at any college, to be honest. I hope you only present information to the students, and not arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here we have the moderator himself, charged to discourage personalized comments, himself directly wielding insults from within the secure confines of his moderation box.

Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair to Clive (did I just say that?), Allen was being pretty asinine at that point, and later apologized. I think Allen has veered several times recently just to the line or maybe a squeek over it. I'm surprised he hasn't been warned/threatened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allen was being sarcastic but not asinine, in my opinion.

Anyway, the point is not whether a reprimand was justified; it's that Clive, after delivering endless smarmy lectures on being "respectful", turns around and tells Allen that he is unfit to teach.

Clive is a hypocrite.
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 02 2009,16:01

AKKK had a comment obliviate on the Dembski Marks 2009 thread. Nakashima has memorialized it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
28

Nakashima

05/02/2009

2:28 pm
Mr AmerikanInKananasKis,

I agree your comment is gone. Most unfortunate.

If I recall, you commented on the section:

But the fact that things can be alive and functional in only certain ways and not in others indicates that nature sets her own targets. The targets of biology, we might say, are “natural kinds” (to borrow a term from philosophy). There are only so many ways that matter can be configured to be alive and, once alive, only so many ways it can be configured to serve different biological functions.

You simply stated a disagreement with this terminological borrowing. Can you be more expansive in your disagreement? Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The original was pithier.
Posted by: keiths on May 02 2009,19:10

This comment led me to a design inference:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 368 >

Allen_MacNeill
05/02/2009
3:39 pm

P.S. Has anyone else received a message that “comments are closed” on the thread discussing Dr. Dembski’s upcoming paper on “Life’s Conservation Law”:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com.....formation/ >

or is it just me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 02 2009,20:46

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 01 2009,09:48)
 
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,20:30)
Clive attacks Allen MacNeill, and Diffaxial calls him on it:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 25 >

Diffaxial
04/30/2009
6:51 pm

Clive:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find your rhetoric to be at a rather junior high level. I think you’re a large repository of information, but a rather small shack of actual argument. I’m baffled that you teach at any college, to be honest. I hope you only present information to the students, and not arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here we have the moderator himself, charged to discourage personalized comments, himself directly wielding insults from within the secure confines of his moderation box.

Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair to Clive (did I just say that?), Allen was being pretty asinine at that point, and later apologized. I think Allen has veered several times recently just to the line or maybe a squeek over it. I'm surprised he hasn't been warned/threatened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He was being a bit sarcastic, as I read it, but not personal. It is the latter that is addressed in their moderation "policy" (implemented by mood ring).

Clive's remarks were personal.
Posted by: Lowell on May 03 2009,01:01

This post from Ludwig on "Why do Evolutionary Psychologists Exist?" appeared and then was deleted within the hour:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

9

Ludwig

05/03/2009

12:04 am
Thanks for your informed response, Allen. It appears that Denyse’s characterization of Pascal Boyer’s views is not supported by Religion Explained

Of course, it’s possible that Denyse has some source from Boyer other than Religion Explained where he asserts that (1) there is some unitary “agent detection device” that (2) “disproves God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt” and (3) is “completely unreliable” due to its hyperactivity.

Maybe it’s available only to subscribers to Respectable Grandmothers Monthly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jkrebs on May 07 2009,22:16

Madsen at < 158 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow—”Hazel the Hypocrite”, an “intolerant bigot”, being admonished for name calling? Now I’ve seen everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Barry at 162:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
madsen is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Talk about a thin skin.

And note the obvious: Barry admonishes hazel for name calling by calling her names.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 07 2009,23:07

BarryA:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BarryA:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You...are an intolerant bigot who judges people and views that diverge from you own. You are revealed not only for a bigot but, worse, a hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gotta love it!
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 08 2009,13:02

Quote (Jkrebs @ May 07 2009,23:16)
Madsen at < 158 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow—”Hazel the Hypocrite”, an “intolerant bigot”, being admonished for name calling? Now I’ve seen everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Barry at 162:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
madsen is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Talk about a thin skin.

And note the obvious: Barry admonishes hazel for name calling by calling her names.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, they've moved on from "Teach the Controversy"?
Posted by: Hermagoras on May 15 2009,09:02

Marduk is < banninated > by Barry:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After [19] above, Marduck will not have to worry about posting on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And for posterity, here is 19:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uncommon descent is becoming nothing more then a poltical blog, I really liked reading the insightful articles my Mr dembski back in the day and a few other select individuals but this blog has become so rancid over the years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Marion Delgado on May 15 2009,11:49

I'm kind of teary-eyed. Glad to see they're keeping the old traditions going there!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 15 2009,16:56

OK, so we gotta add "Comments must conform to Behe's "Wedgie of Evolution" to UD's new open moderation rules. Gotcha, Barry.

< 27 >
Barry Arrington
05/15/2009
1:33 pm

djmullen your comment at [19] betrays a woeful lack of understanding of even the most basic evolutionary concepts even at the basic level of single celled organisms. Pretty much everything you say is either flat out wrong or distorted.

Read Behe’s Edge of Evolution. Then come back to us.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,17:12

meet the new rules, same as the old rules.  

but now with new sparkle fresh crystals!

same country fresh smell!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 15 2009,18:33

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 15 2009,18:12)
meet the new rules, same as the old rules.  

but now with new sparkle fresh crystals!

same country fresh smell!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a smell.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 15 2009,21:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 16 2009,00:56)
OK, so we gotta add "Comments must conform to Behe's "Wedgie of Evolution" to UD's new open moderation rules. Gotcha, Barry.

< 27 >
Barry Arrington
05/15/2009
1:33 pm

djmullen your comment at [19] betrays a woeful lack of understanding of even the most basic evolutionary concepts even at the basic level of single celled organisms. Pretty much everything you say is either flat out wrong or distorted.

Read Behe’s Edge of Evolution. Then come back to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behe?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

This will be a better read and has much much more "Thruthiness"


Posted by: deadman_932 on May 16 2009,17:54

There appears to be a self-ban in the 16 May 2009 " PZ Myers throws down a gauntlet to ID" thread.

"AmerikanInKananaskis" who raised some suspicion as a possible DaveScooterScot sock, < expresses his real or feigned disgust >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2:20 pm

So what are the names of the two orphan genes that make up the bacterial flagellum?
==

I had the answer, and I was going to share it here, but the putzes who run this place deleted one of my posts yesterday.

I’m fed up with their dishonesty. Good riddance to this place
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah believes "Willy" = synonym for putz.
Posted by: keiths on May 21 2009,18:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 3 >

Nakashima
05/21/2009
1:22 pm

Mr Arrington,

[snip]

How is that experiment on the liberties of Mr Madsen going? Is he still banned? Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 9 >

Barry Arrington
05/21/2009
6:06 pm

[snip]

Nakashima, one more crack like the one in [3] and you will join Mr. Madsen. I have “experimented” on no one’s liberties. Commenting on this blog is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment nor any other provision of law. Abuse that privilege and suffer the consequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 21 2009,18:54

OK, OK.  

Gotta keep up:

- Say pretty much whatever you want so long it isn't defamatory or profane. And no vicious personal attacks.

- And no history of ridiculing UD elsewhere.

- And no asking questions we can't answer, or answering questions we can't ask.

- And don't be rude.

- And no comments that appear to be intended to confuse or obfuscate, even if it is we who are confused and obdurate.

- And no levity at BarryA's expense.

- And no hurting Gil's widdle feewings.

- And no underscoring the hypocrisy of all this.

- And no commenting that UD has become a political blog.

- And make sure you read the Wedgie of Evolution and conform your comments to same.

- And no cracking wise on moderation at UD.

- Scratch all of the above if you are pro-ID. We won't more than gently reprimand you if you insult others.

- But if you explain that the target of your personal attack was being just plain stupid, then it's OK after all, you can call them stupid.

- Moderators get to call people stupid too.

Stupid.


Where the fuck is DaveTard??
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 21 2009,20:40

forgot one, not sure where it falls in the winnowing sphere of liberties

ID supporters may make thinly veiled or direct threats against evilutionists as long as they do it elsewhere and just link to it here.

Don't even mention ATBC or you'll immediately be on moderation and automatically face bannination review board.
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 21 2009,23:46

Quote (keiths @ May 21 2009,19:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 3 >

Nakashima
05/21/2009
1:22 pm

Mr Arrington,

[snip]

How is that experiment on the liberties of Mr Madsen going? Is he still banned? Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 9 >

Barry Arrington
05/21/2009
6:06 pm

[snip]

Nakashima, one more crack like the one in [3] and you will join Mr. Madsen. I have “experimented” on no one’s liberties. Commenting on this blog is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by the First Amendment nor any other provision of law. Abuse that privilege and suffer the consequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You skipped the intervening boot lick by Clive



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5

Clive Hayden

05/21/2009

1:36 pm
Nakashima,

—”How is that experiment on the liberties of Mr Madsen going? Is he still banned? Why?”

Lets try to stay on topic.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course , the question still stands, how did Madsen abuse the privilege?
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 22 2009,16:06

...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.
Posted by: KCdgw on May 22 2009,16:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- Say pretty much whatever you want so long it isn't defamatory or profane. And no vicious personal attacks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



-- And no disagreeing with our dumbass  definitions of things

KC
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 22 2009,18:31

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,16:06)
...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think that you could do a better job of sinking IDC than Richard Thompson did?
Posted by: keiths on May 22 2009,19:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,16:06)
...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think that you could do a better job of sinking IDC than Richard Thompson did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.  Just as Dembski's fantasy is to be the Isaac Newton of information theory, I think dvunkannon wants to be the Clarence Darrow of ID (if that isn't a contradiction in terms).

Can you imagine the adulation that would have been lavished on Thompson by the fundies if he had won in Dover?
Posted by: dvunkannon on May 22 2009,21:47

Quote (keiths @ May 22 2009,20:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,16:06)
...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think that you could do a better job of sinking IDC than Richard Thompson did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.  Just as Dembski's fantasy is to be the Isaac Newton of information theory, I think dvunkannon wants to be the Clarence Darrow of ID (if that isn't a contradiction in terms).

Can you imagine the adulation that would have been lavished on Thompson by the fundies if he had won in Dover?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. I want to see BARRY sink IDC!
Posted by: keiths on May 22 2009,22:45

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,19:47)
Quote (keiths @ May 22 2009,20:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2009,16:31)
   
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,16:06)
...and then Barry's next post has comments turned off. I think Barry would feel more comfortable moderating Evolution News and Views. I wonder if Barry has a fantasy about retrying KvD with himself as the lead TMLC attorney. Strangely, I have a similar fantasy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think that you could do a better job of sinking IDC than Richard Thompson did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.  Just as Dembski's fantasy is to be the Isaac Newton of information theory, I think dvunkannon wants to be the Clarence Darrow of ID (if that isn't a contradiction in terms).

Can you imagine the adulation that would have been lavished on Thompson by the fundies if he had won in Dover?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. I want to see BARRY sink IDC!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't say he's not doing his part.
Posted by: keiths on May 23 2009,10:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 6 >

Barry Arrington
05/22/2009
10:29 am

eintown writes: “But either Michael Novacek has never taken a look at the hominid fossil record, or he too is being sensationalistic, as there are hundreds of skeletons available piece together primate evolution.”

OK, on this subject we have the word of the curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, an avowed Darwinist with no interest in understating the evidence. And we have the an anonymous blogger named “eintown.”

Any takers on who has more cred? Oh, pick me! Pick me! Pick me! I can answer that!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is the last comment in the thread, but it wasn't always thus.  There used to be a reply from eintown.

Silent bannination?
Posted by: keiths on May 23 2009,10:36

On the Snow Roller thread, Bilboe < asked >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m impressed by your analysis, DLH, but the real question is, what is the difference between a snowman and a snowwoman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beelzebub replied:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowwomen are frigid.  Snowmen lose their erections when things heat up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beelzebub's comment has vanished.  I guess it was too racy for UD.
Posted by: keiths on May 23 2009,18:24

Beelzebub gets under Clive's skin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 155 >

Clive Hayden
05/23/2009
5:43 pm

beelzebub,

You would do well to listen to StephenB, who, from his own good nature, is trying to help you. And please, I will only ask once, stop attributing mannerisms to me, I have not been embarrassed, I am not stinging, I have not been desperate, etc. etc. All this is ridiculous pathos, and certainly not logos. It’s the last vestige of a man who, when he cannot provide argument, wants to assert how the argument is going. It’s juvenile and it’s insulting to me. Do not try to paint me and my emotions and reactions in your fictitious picture of the argument. You don’t know me, and you can’t speak, even though you do like to speak a lot, about what I am feeling or how I am reacting. All this is self-serving rhetoric. This is the sort of ploy that screams of desperation, to be frank. If you keep it up, I will delete your comments in which they appear. I have no problem with you making arguments, but leave your silly notions of my reactions and emotions out of it, or your comments will be deleted. I have been patient with this particular problem that you have, hoping that you’d grow out of it, you don’t seem to be growing out of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 23 2009,18:54

Clive can't send Beelzebub to Hell, which after all would be like throwing Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch.  So he does the next best thing and puts Beelzebub in Moderation Purgatory:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 23 2009,23:45

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 21 2009,16:54)
- And no hurting Gil's widdle feewings.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or Clive's, evidently.
Posted by: keiths on May 24 2009,15:18

Clive demonstrates the art of rapid-fire hypocrisy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don’t know me, and you can’t speak, even though you do like to speak a lot, about what I am feeling or how I am reacting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Three sentences earlier:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s the last vestige of a man who, when he cannot provide argument, wants to assert how the argument is going.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two sentences later:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is the sort of ploy that screams of desperation, to be frank.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like it when Clive gets wound up.
Posted by: keiths on May 25 2009,00:32

This comment of Diffaxial's has now been Raptured:
Quote (keiths @ May 24 2009,14:25)
Diffaxial < lampoons > jerry's < extended fantasy > involving stealth ID research on bovid evolution:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
144

Diffaxial
05/24/2009
1:30 pm

Jerry @ 142:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have used < this example > a couple times before and it may start you on the way to having a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your fantasy self conducts imaginary research, and obtains imaginary results. He goes on to imaginary fame, and a still larger imaginary research project.

He does reach mistaken imaginary conclusions, however. (Can’t blame him, as you are imagining those conclusions for him.) He concludes that a radiation of species from monophyletic origins may be expressed “in other words” as “fairly conclusive proof that this family has descended from a population with a gene pool much larger than any of the genera gene pools through micro evolution processes…the environment, separation of sub populations, genetic processes and natural selection just narrowed the original gene pool and produced a bunch of new species.” But that only follows in an imaginary world of creationist triumph, in which you get to impose your imaginary findings. You imagine that his work supports Behe’s edge of evolution. But it doesn’t; the kind and rate of evolution he discovered is exactly what would be expected from orthodox theory. Further, it supports the notion that a large variety of bovids can evolve by small changes from a common ancestor, precisely the point of evolution.*

What he doesn’t do is guide his imaginary research by means of imaginary hypotheses and imaginary predictions that arise uniquely from ID, such that ID is put at risk of imaginary disconfirmation.

The one component of the behavior of your imaginary self that does comport with ID reality is his smug inward smile, reflecting his grandiose belief that, against all odds, he holds a key to a secret scientific revolution of which none of his colleagues are aware. (I was disappointed that Miss Bunsen, his imaginary lab assistant, didn’t throw off her glasses, let down her dark hair, and further increase his self-regard on his imaginary lab table.)

You offer this as an argument against my assertion that empirical research in ID is imaginary.

*I’m in debt to Zachriel’s earlier deconstruction of this weird fantasy.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 25 2009,09:27

Crossposted from the UD thread:

< Diffaxial > states the obvious:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Diffaxial
05/25/2009
7:54 am

My comments are now being arbitrarily and silently deleted, which I’ll chose to accept as a compliment vis their effectiveness.

Moderation may remark, “your comment was satirical” (which it surely was, although that satire conveyed a serious observation). To that I reply that in the above thread Jerry has repeatedly characterized my remarks as “stupid,” as “a joke,” and as “clueless,” while I have never used such language. Yet Jerry’s remarks still stand. Moreover, on the “science is self-correcting” thread StephenB has just posted satirical replies he imagines I might make to several of his questions. They also still stand. (I don’t mind.)

It follows that it is not the satirical component of my post that resulted in its deletion.

Rather, once again, it is reasonable to conclude that moderation at UD finds it necessary to place its thumb on the scale when the discussion is going badly for ID.

Jerry: Are you going to hide behind moderation’s skirt, or request that the comment in question be restored? I would.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 27 2009,15:24

Two more Raptured comments, as reported on the "Uncommonly Dense" thread:

Quote (keiths @ May 26 2009,21:23)
 
Quote (keiths @ May 26 2009,21:00)
A couple of beelzebub's comments on the "Faith and Evolution" thread, in case they never see the light of day:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 2 >

beelzebub
05/26/2009
10:33 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The opening video misquotes Darwin as saying


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on, people, how hard is it to do a little fact checking? That quote is from Richard Dawkins, not Charles Darwin.

Also, I had to chuckle when I saw Phillip Johnson described in the video as a “science author.”

Last, there’s a typo in the press release at the bottom where it lists the URLs. ‘faithandevolution.org’ is mistyped as ‘faithanevolution.org’.

Par for the course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 3 >

beelzebub
05/26/2009
10:48 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It gets worse.

Not only is the quote misattributed, but it has been altered. The actual quote reads:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess “no evil and no good” sounded too neutral to the propagandists, so they excised it.

It’s good to see that the DI is upholding its usual high standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I saved them.  They've both been poofed out of existence at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 28 2009,13:09

Beelzebub is banished to that great moderation queue in the bowels of the earth, from which there is no exit:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 331 >

Clive Hayden
05/28/2009
10:59 am

beelzebub, mauka, ribczynski, kieths,

I have to wonder why you are so fixated on commenting, under your various sock-puppets, when you are so disdainful of the programme here. I can’t understand why someone would be so interested in something that they thought so awful and wrong. It would be like eating something that you couldn’t stomach, everyday, over and over. Now run on home to your AtBC buddy’s, find some comfort in clinging to the legs of daddy Dawkins, and cry about how you’re so mistreated here.  I’m sure I’ll see you soon under another masochistic sock-puppet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I responded, but of course my comment did not appear:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive writes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
beelzebub, mauka, ribczynski, kieths,

I have to wonder why you are so fixated on commenting, under your various sock-puppets, when you are so disdainful of the programme here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought dialog was the ostensible "programme" here.  Am I mistaken? If so, then perhaps you should disclose the actual program.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can’t understand why someone would be so interested in something that they thought so awful and wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Partly because the need for informed criticism is so great here, partly because it's fascinating to watch you guys as you struggle to rationalize your beliefs, and partly for the sheer fun of debating.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would be like eating something that you couldn’t stomach, everyday, over and over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all.  It's more like watching a well-written comedy/disaster movie, where the hapless crew keeps ramming the ship into the iceberg over and over.  The only part that's hard to stomach is the hypocrisy, when it occurs.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now run on home to your AtBC buddy’s, find some comfort in clinging to the legs of daddy Dawkins, and cry about how you’re so mistreated here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a different idea: why not let my comments appear, since they easily conform to the moderation standards as well as or better than yours and Barry's?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the benefit of the other socks navigating the washing machine at UD, here is the comment that pushed Clive over the edge (reproduced from memory, since Clive deleted it).  It was in response to two comments (< link >, < link >) of Clive's in which he cites the "alien behaviour" of chimpanzee inter-group conflict as evidence against our common ancestry:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive,

If you think that chimp nastiness is "alien behaviour" to humans, then you should put down the Lewis and Chesterton and open up a newspaper from time to time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it. What's fascinating is that despite the bannination, he actually approved later comments of mine that were in the moderation queue, though he was too thin-skinned to let this one appear.

Clive is very touchy when it comes to his idols Lewis and Chesterton.  (Hey Clive, don't forget the first commandment.)
Posted by: J-Dog on May 28 2009,13:28

What will Clive do when "jerry" comes out?  Let's all hope he's not a gun-nut!
Posted by: KCdgw on May 30 2009,12:16

Just in case...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave Wisker

05/30/2009

10:24 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Jerry writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For those who still think macrovolutionary processes have not or cannot be observed or examined experimentally, I suggest reading this essay by molecular biologist Art Hunt on his blog The RNA Underworld:

“Is macroevolution impossible to study (Part 2)?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The plant kingdom is many things – the basis of agriculture and civilization, a natural laboratory with a stupefying capability in organic synthesis, a source of untold numbers of pharmaceuticals, antimicrobials, herbals, and other chemical playthings, a fascinating range of biological form and function, and an eminently accessible subject for studies of evolution. Along the lines of the last two bullets, one of the more interesting aspects of plants is the range of growth habits that may be adopted. Among these are two sets of contrasting characteristics – annual or perennial, and herbaceous or woody. Differences in these characteristics are among the bases for classification of plant species. For this reason, but also because accompanying morphological differences can be quite considerable, evolutionary changes that involve transitioning between these states are macroevolutionary. Thus, it stands to reason that studying the means by these characteristics evolve amounts to experimental analysis of macroevolution, and understanding the underlying mechanisms constitutes an explanation of macroevolutionary processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The article goes on to describe work with the plant Arabidopsis thaliana in which mutaions to two genes resulted in dramatic changes to the plant’s reproductive growth habits, changes that would, if found in two different populations would place them in different higher taxa. In other words, small, microevolutionary processes can be observed to produce macroevolutionary types of changes.

The article can be found here:

< http://aghunt.wordpress.com/20.....dy-part-2/ >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



KC


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 31 2009,22:31

Diffaxial informs me that he has been placed in moderation. Directed to Moderator Clive by Diffaxial:

Why have I been placed in moderation?

Directed to me in a single post by UB:

"So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations..."

"I may have overlooked it given your pompous certainty..."

"I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have."

"To be quite honest, up until your last post I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot..."

"I want you to know that I am more than willing to slow down for you..."

Earlier,

"The preceding thread is a monument to your ability to bullshit your way through a conversation."

Jerry earlier:

"This is a rather stupid statement and indicates a lack of understanding of the issues."

And, of course Stephen's multiple aspersions regarding my "irrationality" on the "self-correcting" thread, which I know you have followed.

I've made no personal comments to any participant here whatsoever. You cannot seriously have placed me in moderation due to the phrase "cow pies" (about as strong as "poopy head") after remaining silent on the above.

Once again, UD shows its stripes as a cowardly forum where participants hide behind the skirts of moderation.
Posted by: keiths on June 03 2009,10:37

Quote (keiths @ June 03 2009,00:33)
CliveTard says "I knew it all along":
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 481 >

Clive Hayden
06/03/2009
1:06 am

beelzeb—I mean, serendipity,

You move fast with your sock-puppets, I have to give you credit. It’s like a carnival act. I never seen such an amazing feat! It’s a lightnin’ fast sock puppet folks! Gather round! I recognize your style now right off the bat. Serendipity came on the scene the day after I banned beelzebub. Maybe give it a week next time? You should try to avoid getting my attention in the future, and just make comments here under the radar, and don’t insult Atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right, Clive -- you knew it all along, which is why you waited five days to ban me.

You should have been able to figure it out, though -- I never attempt to disguise my style.  I just change the name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Deadman assesses Clive's performance:
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 03 2009,01:43)
:)  In an open-debate forum (and without the ban-hammer in his sweaty little hands) I bet Clive would cry faster than Cornelius Hunter or John Baumgardner did...and they only lasted a few days.

Let me know when you decide to peek your head out of your safe little echo-chamber, Clivey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 03 2009,11:25

Is Beelzebub one of us or someone new? PM me, you handsome devil!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 03 2009,11:36

what you mean "us" kemosabe?
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 03 2009,16:19

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 03 2009,12:36)
what you mean "us" kemosabe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another great Bill Cosby line!
Posted by: keiths on June 03 2009,19:57

Clive "defends" his moderation decisions. Cross-posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread:
Quote (keiths @ June 03 2009,17:41)
A corollary of Poes' Law is that it's often impossible to tell whether an ID supporter is being stupid or just dishonest.  This is well illustrated by Clive's "defense" of his moderation decisions on two threads at UD (< link >, < link >).  At first I thought he was just lying in order to avoid to save face, but then I noticed that he still doesn't understand how to use blockquotes, that he misses the point even when it's not to his advantage to do so, and that he produces locutions such as "Why would you be asking jerry a question I made about moderation?"  The needle swung back sharply to "Stupid".  In the end, I concluded that he is both stupid and dishonest.  After reading the following, I think you'll agree:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
213

Alan Fox
05/30/2009
3:31 am

Jerry,

Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.

He is far from the only one.

Why do you never venture to other sites where evolutionary biologists might dispute your assertion “that there is no evidence for macro evolution”?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
232

Clive Hayden
05/30/2009
6:59 pm

Alan Fox,

——”Jerry,
Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.”

Why would you be asking Jerry a question that I made about moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
265

Clive Hayden
06/01/2009
12:53 am

Diffaxial,

——”No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies.”

——”I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding.”

This is why I put you in moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
266

serendipity
06/01/2009
2:40 am

Clive,

By what standard do Diffaxial’s comments merit the imposition of moderation if the following insults by Upright Biped (all of which come from a single comment) do not?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations… given your pompous certainty… I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have… I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot… I am more than willing to slow down for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
283

Alan Fox
06/01/2009
10:34 am



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
232

Clive Hayden
05/30/2009
6:59 pm wrote:

Alan Fox,

——”Jerry,
Why doesn’t Bob O’Hara post here any more? It is simply because he can’t. Ask Clive, he will confirm it.”

Why would you be asking Jerry a question that I made about moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was pointing out to Jerry, who seemed unaware of the fact, that Bob O’Hara no longer posts here because he is banned.

If you recall, you refused to rescind the ban, notwithstanding Barry Arrington’s new moderation policy because you said Bob had been rude about UD at AtBC. I searched, but couldn’t find a post of Bob’s that was insulting to individuals, and wondered if you could give an example. You refused, claiming to be too busy.

Hope that clarifies my previous comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
295

Clive Hayden
06/01/2009
6:09 pm

Alan Fox,

I didn’t claim to be too busy to answer you about Bob O’Hara. You can look through his threads over at AtBC same as I can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
296

serendipity
06/01/2009
6:32 pm

Clive,

According to Barry Arrington, comments made on other blogs do not disqualify a person from commenting here at UD:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 50 >

Barry Arrington
03/13/2009
10:41 pm

CannuckianYankee writes:
“I’m just wondering Clive, Let’s say a person such as, oh, PZ Meyers wanted to post here and he kept his language cordial and non-insulting, would he be welcome to post? I would be interested in reading what he has to say without all the hyperbole that is a part of his language in his own blog. I might enjoy seeing how others here would challenge him.”

I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to Barry, Bob O’H is “more than welcome” as long as he “minds his manners” here.

Are you overriding Barry’s stated policy? If so, then on what basis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
serendipity,

The moderation policy as stated by Barry is consistently being applied by me, for it pertains to the particular circumstances of what constitutes someone being “moderated” for someone who already posts here, or may come to post here anew. But there is a difference in what constitutes placing someone in “moderation” who already posts here freely, and what constitutes taking someone off the blacklisted list. In Bob O’Hara’s case, he’s not “moderated”, for he’s already been blacklisted in the past. I can re-examine whether he should be taken off the blacklisted status, which was not enumerated by Barry at all, notice. And on that score, what he said at AtBC tells me that I should not take him off the blacklisted status, for such disrespect would likely be perpetuated here. Notice, on this account of what constitutes taking someone off the blacklisted status, was not at all mentioned by Barry, thus, I am not inconsistent with the moderation policy.

As far as “moderating” Diffaxial, his comments did deserve a placement in moderation. You’re welcome to point me to others whom you feel deserve to also be placed in moderation status, and I will consider it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive Hayden writes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The moderation policy as stated by Barry is consistently being applied by me…But there is a difference in what constitutes placing someone in “moderation” who already posts here freely, and what constitutes taking someone off the blacklisted list. In Bob O’Hara’s case, he’s not “moderated”, for he’s already been blacklisted in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive,

Barry’s stated moderation policy makes no such distinction:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that “anyone else” is welcome. No qualification; no “unless they’ve been blacklisted”.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And on that score, what he said at AtBC tells me that I should not take him off the blacklisted status, for such disrespect would likely be perpetuated here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your prognostications are irrelevant. The policy states that “anyone else” is “more than welcome”. It does not say “unless the moderator suspects that disrespect will ‘likely’ occur.”


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as “moderating” Diffaxial, his comments did deserve a placement in moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they did, then so did Upright Biped’s (and the comments of many others on this blog). Since you have evidently given the others the benefit of the doubt and left them out of moderation, I recommend that you equalize the situation by removing Diffaxial from moderation as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
serendipity,

——”Barry’s stated moderation policy makes no such distinction:”

Which was exactly my point, it doesn’t even speak to taking someone off the blacklisted list. Tell me, oh serendipity, what Barry’s criteria is for taking someone off that list who has already been banned? Hmmm?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive writes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which was exactly my point, it doesn’t even speak to taking someone off the blacklisted list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. Instead, it says that “PZ — or anyone else” is “more than welcome”:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me know when you’ve located the phrase “unless they have been blacklisted” in the passage above. I have been through it word by word and I’m quite sure that it’s not there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
serendipity,

——”Let me know when you’ve located the phrase “unless they have been blacklisted” in the passage above. I have been through it word by word and I’m quite sure that it’s not there.”

Exactly right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m glad you agree. When will you be removing Bob O’H from the blacklist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
serendipity,

——”I’m glad you agree. When will you be removing Bob O’H from the blacklist?”

Not until you explain what constitutes taking someone off the blacklist from Barry’s stated moderation policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive,

Barry’s policy doesn’t mention people who are blacklisted. It also doesn’t mention Methodists, women and amputees.

By your faulty logic, you should conclude that Methodists, women and amputees aren’t welcome at UD.

Now do you see your mistake?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Serendipity,

No, I don’t see a mistake because there is no mistake. Being an amputee, Methodist, or a woman is not what got ol’ Bob O’H blacklisted, and neither will being any of those things get him out of being blacklisted. I’m still waiting for your knowledge of what is required to remove someone from that list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like talking to a rock.  A dishonest rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on June 03 2009,20:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2009,09:25)
Is Beelzebub one of us or someone new? PM me, you handsome devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beelzebub has been out of the sock drawer < for a week or so >.
Posted by: keiths on June 04 2009,18:36

Cross-posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread for easier future access:
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 03 2009,18:07)
I restore to you the title King of Tard Miners.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From now on, I'm sleeping with the crown under my pillow.  Lest you would-be usurpers get any ideas, I offer the following to squelch your presumption. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Name                           Tenure               "Reason" for Bannination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
keiths                  11/29/05 -  1/09/06   Quoted Dembski, Behe and Johnson contradicting DaveScot
bradcliffe1              1/12/06 -  1/14/06   Offered "inflatable possum suit" product idea to W. Dembski for his Evolve Yourself, Inc.
woctor                   1/15/06 -  1/19/06   "Accidental" server glitch destroys my comments, then banned for reposting DaveScot's threat to PT
watchmaker               1/24/06 -  2/01/06   Silent bannination  
valerie                  2/06/06 -  3/07/06   Explained to DaveScot that individual photons do not have a blackbody temperature
woody                    3/09/06 -  3/12/06   Stated that P. Nelson's YEC worldview was profoundly threatened by scientific evidence for an old universe
hypermoderate            4/28/06 -  5/12/06   Demonstrated the circularity of CSI to DaveScot
zapatero                 6/07/06 -  8/15/06   Silent bannination  
sophophile               8/18/06 -  8/22/06   Turned Dembski's question back on him and asked for evidence of ID
Karl Pfluger             9/03/06 - 10/04/06   Corrected DaveScot's uninformed blather on microprocessor modeling at the transistor level
                           10/06 -     6/08   The Telic Thoughts Era
                            7/08 -    10/08   Hiatus
Turdus migratorius            stillborn       It seems the scientific illiterates at UD thought this name was scatalogical and were too stupid to check
ribczynski              11/18/08 - 12/21/08   Hurt Clive's feewings by calling him smarmy at AtBC and refusing to submit to a double standard of moderation
                            1/09 -     3/09   Hiatus
skeech & skeech plus     4/06/09 -  4/06/09   Silent bannination
mauka                    3/25/09 -  4/26/09   Silent bannination for challenging Barry's moderation double standards            
beelzebub                5/03/09 -  5/28/09   Advised Clive to put down the Lewis and Chesterton and pick up a newspaper
serendipity              5/29/09 -  6/02/09   Banned for challenging Clive's moderation double standards and for being keiths

Posted by: keiths on June 06 2009,02:34

Denyse is feeling her oats:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 6 >

O'Leary
06/06/2009
2:14 am

djmullen: You wrote “You’re probably upset that the article points out that, “relieve his necessities if required”, may be a homosexual reference. You may be upset by that, but you shouldn’t be surprised.”

Mullen, if you try any more amateur Freudianism about me, I will ban you from this list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KCdgw on June 19 2009,13:44

< Saved in case of deletion: >

Dave Wisker


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive,
Ignoring what I wrote supporting it and implying I am just repeating the same sentence undermines the credibility of your point dramatically.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



KC


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 26 2009,18:53

Clive


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JayM,

I won’t tolerate baby talk. You’re presence here has been one of deceit the entire time, and I’m done with letting you have the opportunity to continue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The offending comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clive, baby, if I wanted to fool someone I’d go to a venue where that poses an actual challenge.

Now how about addressing the substance of my posts above?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Link >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 26 2009,18:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You’re presence here has been one of deceit the entire time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID in a nutshell.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 27 2009,00:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 26 2009,18:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You’re presence here has been one of deceit the entire time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID in a nutshell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, it passes spell check.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 27 2009,02:33

In other UD related news...

< http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_cheetos_assault >
Posted by: didymos on June 29 2009,18:44

Ack!  I forgot to add this after posting in the UD thread the other day:


Quote (didymos @ June 27 2009,04:56)
Bannination Alert!

So, Clive has been < getting pissy > at JayM for being unsupportive and not validating enough:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Clive Hayden

06/26/2009

2:09 pm

JayM,

——”I don’t argue against ID, Clive, I argue against poor arguments from ID supporters. That’s far more supportive of the eventual goal of making ID credible than is participating in an echo chamber where criticism of people on “our side” is strongly discouraged.”

You never have any arguments in favor of ID. Never. All I ever see from you are arguments against ID. It doesn’t matter that you posit them in terms of “constructive criticism” and “just wanting to help”. If you really want to help, then make some of your own arguments in favor of ID, instead of always criticizing others who make actual ID arguments. Otherwise, your pretense is exposed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Regardless of whether JayM is legit, Clive is avoiding a serious problem: exactly what arguments can be marshaled in favor of ID?  Other than all the ones that have been utterly discredited as pseudoscientific, woo-infused bullshit, that is.

But Clive does have a point, even if he lacks the vocabulary best suited to expressing it:  JayM could very well be an ID concern troll.  Of course, the irony is that ID and UD would be infinitely better served by a single concern troll than it is by every "supportive" poster on UD put together and JayM < seems > to get this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You, too, are part of the problem. Real scientists debate the issues with each other. Here at UD, you show more concern over loyalty to the cause than to the content of the discussions.

If you spent more time policing the quality and accuracy of the posts by some of the regulars here, rather than in questioning the motives of those who are actually interested in making real progress, UD might fulfill its potential as a forum for serious discussion of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Surprisingly, Clive ignored that open provocation (DaveTard he is not, to the detriment of us all :( ) and contented himself with a rather anemic "Are too!" response which JayM found < amusing >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JayM

06/26/2009

6:32 pm

Clive Hayden @488

       You’re assuming too much, Clive. I started posting here because I got tired of hearing the old “ID says nothing about the nature of the designer” dodge. That and similar arguments from ID supporters who significantly overstate the case for ID, as it stands now, pose a major problem for those of us who want to treat ID as science.

   I’m not assuming too much. You’re not fooling anyone.

Clive, baby, if I wanted to fool someone I’d go to a venue where that poses an actual challenge.

Now how about addressing the substance of my posts above?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh snap!  

Sadly that "snap" was actually the sound of fracturing camel spine.  JayM is now an < ex-poster >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

494

Clive Hayden

06/26/2009

6:43 pm

JayM,

I won’t tolerate baby talk. You’re presence here has been one of deceit the entire time, and I’m done with letting you have the opportunity to continue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clive Hayden [insert gratuitous reverb here]:  Don't call him "baby" if you're a dude. That's gay, and insufficiently supportive of the ID cause.

Clive Hayden:  He'll make weak puns at you and won't let you post at UD anymore.  

Clive Hayden: Not so much the Wielder of The Ban-Hammer as he is the Largely Ineffectual Brandisher of the Hollow Plastic Whack-a-Mole Mallet.  

Clive Hayden: Ghost Hunter.  ID Supporter.

(edited for minor corrections)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: GCUGreyArea on July 02 2009,03:56

I have a feeling that Excession has been banned, or at the very least been put on moderation, never to return.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
60
Clive Hayden
07/01/2009
4:54 pm

Excession,

Are you trying to vilify me? I don’t want that website linked, not because it exposes a moderation policy, but because most of those people have been banned, and I do not want to give them an audience here. You’re welcome to join them if you want, just keep up your tactics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on July 03 2009,13:30

A rare case of < self-bannination >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ScottAndrews

07/01/2009

7:49 am

I’ve decided to stop posting on this thread and this forum. It’s the nature of this type of “discussion” between entrenched positions to sometimes turn negative, bordering on hostile. I point a finger back at myself when I say that, but either way it’s something I shouldn’t engage in.
I encourage those who know how to keep a discussion civil and constructive to do so, and not be swayed when lesser people try to hijack the debate for the amusement of provoking a reaction. As for the those, perhaps you serve some useful purpose in your real lives and this is just your ugly side, one of which we all have.
Personally, I shouldn’t be taking time from other pursuits to engage in this, and I don’t feel good after arguing that much.
I’m describing mostly myself, not this forum. I think UD is great, and I’ll continue to read it. But if I’m tempted to open my mouth I’ll have to ask Clive to ban me.
(Sorry for interrupting this thread with my irrelevant personal statement.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dvunkannon on July 03 2009,13:37

Is Nnoel banned? I thought I saw a "Goodbye" from Clive.
Posted by: dvunkannon on July 03 2009,13:39

Quote (didymos @ July 03 2009,14:30)
A rare case of < self-bannination >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ScottAndrews

07/01/2009

7:49 am

I’ve decided to stop posting on this thread and this forum. It’s the nature of this type of “discussion” between entrenched positions to sometimes turn negative, bordering on hostile. I point a finger back at myself when I say that, but either way it’s something I shouldn’t engage in.
I encourage those who know how to keep a discussion civil and constructive to do so, and not be swayed when lesser people try to hijack the debate for the amusement of provoking a reaction. As for the those, perhaps you serve some useful purpose in your real lives and this is just your ugly side, one of which we all have.
Personally, I shouldn’t be taking time from other pursuits to engage in this, and I don’t feel good after arguing that much.
I’m describing mostly myself, not this forum. I think UD is great, and I’ll continue to read it. But if I’m tempted to open my mouth I’ll have to ask Clive to ban me.
(Sorry for interrupting this thread with my irrelevant personal statement.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad about Scott. He started out posting reasonable, if somewhat condescending comments. We'll see if he can stay away or if this turns into a frilly shirted nadios!
Posted by: didymos on July 03 2009,13:43

Nnoel iis nno < mmore >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Clive Hayden

07/02/2009

2:25 pm

Nnoel,

——”If you cannot imagine how these versus could be used as evidence of a flat earth in the centre of the universe, then you have no imagination.”

You would certainly need a lot of imagination to see it your way.

——”In light of the above quote from you, I accuse you of LYING Barb, I am calling you a LIAR! Flat out, demanding that you tell the truth, or stand up as THE ULTIMATE source of all knowledge on the stuff you claim to KNOW!”

Goodbye.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on July 03 2009,13:52

Clivebaby is....< THE ADMONISHER >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Clive Hayden

07/02/2009

2:23 pm

pkettley,

Be respectful, I’ll only tell you this once. Don’t deride others here.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I somehow doubt StephenB or Gordon are being held to the same standard of behavior. I guess I'm just being selectively hyperskeptical, though.  Still...

OK, Cliveykins, you like teh quotes, so I'll give you some:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We ought to see far enough into a hypocrite to see even his sincerity. -- G.K Chesterton
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not to be, but to seem, virtuous -- it is a formula whose utility we all discovered in the nursery. -- C. S. Lewis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. -- Some 1st Century Jewish Guy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This one is excellent advice for ID as a whole:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Enough had been thought, and said, and felt, and imagined. It was about time that something should be done. -- C.S. Lewis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 03 2009,14:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
frilly shirted nadios!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hahahahahahahahahahahahah

he couldn't keep away.

clive protects Barb because that's who signs his paychecks?
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 04 2009,11:36

< NNoel finally cracked >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
89

Clive Hayden

07/02/2009

2:25 pm

Nnoel,

——”If you cannot imagine how these versus could be used as evidence of a flat earth in the centre of the universe, then you have no imagination.”

You would certainly need a lot of imagination to see it your way.

——”In light of the above quote from you, I accuse you of LYING Barb, I am calling you a LIAR! Flat out, demanding that you tell the truth, or stand up as THE ULTIMATE source of all knowledge on the stuff you claim to KNOW!”

Goodbye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Followed, 26 minutes later, by


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
90

Barb

07/02/2009

2:51 pm

Nnoel, I thought you were gone. Guess not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess not so.
Posted by: didymos on July 05 2009,02:58

Alan Fox has been < sent to his room >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Clive Hayden

07/05/2009

12:43 am

Alan Fox,

——”David, stop baiting Gil. Just because he is not up to your intellectual level is no reason to take pot-shots. We don’t want him to flounce out again, do we?”

I’m debating whether to just moderate you or ban you. As it stands right now, you’re only moderated. I’ll check your upcoming comments, and may decide to ban you outright, but at the very least, I doubt you’ll get out of moderation anytime soon. If you apologize to Gil, I may consider taking you out of moderation, but it better sound sincere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 05 2009,12:36

< Clive Hayden > needs a slap in the Chestertons.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 05 2009,17:27

Clive could also star in a new comedy series...

Fawlty Powers - The weekly challenges of a mentalty challenged Baninator.
Posted by: BWE on July 06 2009,01:40

I'm out of the loop. Who is clive?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPcDREaxsu8 >

like in Derek and Clive?
Posted by: dvunkannon on July 06 2009,10:37

Has anyone fessed up to being Nnoel?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2009,10:49

Joe makes our  point for us without realising it:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-325286 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30

Joseph

07/06/2009

9:25 am
Graham,

ID can be falsified by demonstrating that nature, operating freely, can account for everything.

IOW substantiate the claims made by the materialist position.

BTW what contributations have materialism made?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that that ID is easily falsified, eh. Provide an explanation for everything <> gaps argument, at all.


And that materialism is just rubbish, too. No application in the real world at all.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2009,10:57

Slapdown:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-325290 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
31

PaulBurnett

07/06/2009

9:49 am
Joseph (#30) wrote: “ID can be falsified by demonstrating that nature, operating freely, can account for everything.”

and

“BTW what contributations have materialism made?

“Nature, operating freely,” has given us short lifespans, high infant mortality rates, lots of diseases, limited food supplies, etc.

Materialism has given us medicines to increase our lifespan, decrease infant mortality rates, cure diseases, and vastly increased food supplies. Plus technological toys used by some to carp against materialism.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lowell on July 06 2009,11:29

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 21 2009,18:54)
OK, OK.  

Gotta keep up:

- Say pretty much whatever you want so long it isn't defamatory or profane. And no vicious personal attacks.

- And no history of ridiculing UD elsewhere.

- And no asking questions we can't answer, or answering questions we can't ask.

- And don't be rude.

- And no comments that appear to be intended to confuse or obfuscate, even if it is we who are confused and obdurate.

- And no levity at BarryA's expense.

- And no hurting Gil's widdle feewings.

- And no underscoring the hypocrisy of all this.

- And no commenting that UD has become a political blog.

- And make sure you read the Wedgie of Evolution and conform your comments to same.

- And no cracking wise on moderation at UD.

- Scratch all of the above if you are pro-ID. We won't more than gently reprimand you if you insult others.

- But if you explain that the target of your personal attack was being just plain stupid, then it's OK after all, you can call them stupid.

- Moderators get to call people stupid too.

Stupid.


Where the fuck is DaveTard??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive doesn't have to explain himself to you, but rest assured that all deleted comments violate the "normal criteria":


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
135

Clive Hayden

07/06/2009

10:48 am
djmullen,

To be honest, I don’t remember the content exactly. I read a lot of comments, and the normal criteria applies to all of them, so I recollect that it was offensive or vilifying or rude in some manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2009,11:31

This might be relevant to banninology (or is it BlogCzaricisms? Banninationalistic studies?).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Clive Hayden >: To be honest, I don’t remember the content exactly. I read a lot of comments, and the normal criteria applies to all of them, so I recollect that it was offensive or vilifying or rude in some manner.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive: I don't recall.

-
Missed it by less than the time it takes light to travel from Jupiter to the Earth.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 13 2009,10:48

Quote (Hermagoras @ July 13 2009,10:35)
< David Kellogg is moderated! >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Upright BiPed, you have provided the second step of the ID two-step proof via OOL.
Step 1. If life cannot be artificially manufactured, life is too complex to have evolved ==> therefore ID.
Step 2. If life can be artificially manufactured, life is created by intelligence ==> therefore ID.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive, I challenge you to disclose a reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look. You're provoking Unpleasant Blowhard, whose posts are devoid of content other than an arrogant tone and gratuitous insults. It is Clive's responsibility to police UD and sustain a reasonably positive tone. By addressing UB and eliciting responses from him you are clearly deliberately undermining Clive's moderation efforts. Hence you are now under his watchful spleen.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 20 2009,07:16

To paraphrase: Slight exaggeration = bitterly abusive feeling or expression.

dbthomas

——”If by ‘journalist’ you mean ‘person who mostly just paraphrases articles by other people, many of whom are just paraphrasing articles by yet other persons who are in turn mostly just paraphrasing research papers and adding a side of interview’, then yes: she’s a journalist. And also, I have it on good authority, a respectable grandmother.”

< 53 >
Clive Hayden
07/19/2009
11:40 pm

Prove your assertion that Denyse mostly paraphrases other paraphrases, or you will be banned. I won’t tolerate this vitriol.

dbthomas substantiated his remark in part (Denyse is a grandmother) yet was banned nonetheless.
Posted by: hooligans on July 28 2009,15:01

Silent ban of 90DegreeAngel was recorded for challenging Corny Hunter regarding religious nature of evolution.
Posted by: RDK on Aug. 11 2009,23:32

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329275 >

My original account recently achieved full bannination for posting on two different accounts, one of which was made after the original was put under unprovoked moderation:



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
40
Clive Hayden
08/08/2009
9:03 pm

Ardeekay,

For the sake of continuity, I’m going to delete this account. You can still post under RDK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unfortunately, Clivebaby must have forgotten, lied, or both, because minutes later my posts were no longer displayed on the blog, but sent to...

the Phantom Zone.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 12 2009,18:29

I tried to place the following comment in the  < Dembski whine thread > (about people finding out that he's giving 20% credit in classes to students who troll "enemy" websites).

It refers to the < Barret Brown thread >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This post used to be up at comment 104 of the barrett brown thread:

"Gee, Clive, I realize of course, that you’re merely being mildly provocative — however transparently — but thanks for reassuring me about my concerns regarding impartial moderation and people acting as foils.

I realize that a one-on-one thread devoted ONLY to StephenB and me debating strikes you as an invalid reason to want a change of venues, but given recent events, I’d again beg to differ.

I also notice that StephenB hardly even responded to my criticisms except to ask me a question about who I was referring to in my post.

Yeah, that’s impressive.

So, yes, I will go back to that “sight” that should not exist, Clive. Where Alexa stats outshine other “sights.”

P.S. It’s very clear to any unbiased observer why some people here never appear on any forum other than Uncommon Descent. Thanks for your hospitality while it lasted, Clive!"

It was removed for what reason? Certainly not utter incivility. There's fossilized remnants of the post in KairosFocus' post at 116 in that same thread. But there's no censorship here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anyway, it's clear I'm on super-secret mod-ban, but I'm too busy doing some home renovation crap to care.  

As I see it (and due to looking at recent Uncommon Descent Alexa stats) ....the ONLY reason that Clive, baby is putting on this pretense of "openness" and the ONLY reason that Behe was invited to have a "UD Blag"  = because the UD site hits are below even the ratings of some pretty obscure evo/science-based sites as well as relatively modest freethought, atheist, agnostic, or skeptic sites.

They're barely treading water at UD.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 12 2009,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, it's clear I'm on super-secret mod-ban,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sometimes known as double-secret probation - just ask Dean Wormer! :p

Henry
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 13 2009,13:38

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2009,04:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, it's clear I'm on super-secret mod-ban,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sometimes known as double-secret probation - just ask Dean Wormer! :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been told I bear a striking resemblance to Mr Blutarsky:



"Double secret probation" is my favourite kind of probation.

Just apropos of nothing. Of course.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 13 2009,14:10

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 13 2009,13:38)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2009,04:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, it's clear I'm on super-secret mod-ban,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sometimes known as double-secret probation - just ask Dean Wormer! :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been told I bear a striking resemblance to Mr Blutarsky:



"Double secret probation" is my favourite kind of probation.

Just apropos of nothing. Of course.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis - I thought I recognized you.  College - Where I spent the best   4 7 years of my life...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 25 2009,11:13

< Clive Baby > articulates a new moderation rule to the most excellent Learned Hand:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see no grounds whatsoever in considering your anecdotal belief to be authoritative, especially considering that you don’t even know the man. The presumptuousness is really irritating, and I would advise you to stop, I’m serious...As your moderator, I would advise you to stop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New moderation rule: Don't irritate Clive. Really. He's serious.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 25 2009,12:06

IOW, don't make him angry, you wouldn't like him when he's angry? :O
Posted by: sledgehammer on Aug. 25 2009,16:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2009,09:13)
< Clive Baby > articulates a new moderation rule to the most excellent Learned Hand:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see no grounds whatsoever in considering your anecdotal belief to be authoritative, especially considering that you don’t even know the man. The presumptuousness is really irritating, and I would advise you to stop, I’m serious...As your moderator, I would advise you to stop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New moderation rule: Don't irritate Clive. Really. He's serious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter CliveBaby:
LH, your arguments are far too cogent, logical, and convincing for the purposes of this blog, so I am looking for any lame excuse to ban you without appearing too blatantly obvious.
 Just because Dr. Hunter signed a statement declaring his belief that the literal interpretation of Genesis takes precedence over anything scientific, doesn't mean that his religion directs his thinking, so there!
Oh and I'm serious!
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 26 2009,09:04

Dear Onlookers, Scott.David has passed.  

Sadly, his comments have not passed through moderation for the last 2 weeks, so we must assume the worst.  Silent Bannination has taken the quasi-life of another poor sock puppet.  His final blocked post was a plea for BA^77 to muster up the courage to post at his Special Creation thread here, but unfortunately, Clivebaby's DeathPanel pulled the plug on the post.

Requiescat in pace.

In lieu of flowers, Scot.David requests you have a cold one and think of him, and for all you Brits and other furiners, a warm, room temperature Guinness.
Posted by: KCdgw on Aug. 26 2009,10:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Dave Wisker: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
vjtorly,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave Wisker
I completely agree with your remark in #19 above. Foul language has no place on this Web site, and the author of the offending comments should apologize
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks. Actually, bornagain did post a ‘notpology’, essentially blaming the big bad atheists for his behavior, and also informing me that putting up with his rudeness was worth it since he was actually trying to save my soul. I know, pathetic.
He also seems to think he hurt my feelings. Not so. I have been called far worse by far better debaters than him, and had a beer with them afterwards. The fact is, his debating style is shallow, tiresome, selectively-informed and non-engaging. The “love it or leave it” remark finally convinced me he isn’t a serious participant. There are far more serious participants here that are worth engaging.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 26 2009,18:24

Can I get some credit for being pre-banned?  I tried to unveil a brand new puppet, but Clivebaby won't even let his first comments through.

It's a sad day indeed, having to face up to the fact that my Puppeting Days are now over.  Well, I'll always have the memories of GLarson calling out BA^77 for not loving Jesus enough, UD will always have a lot of Jack Inhoffe and Denyse will always admire my Hugh Jass.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 26 2009,18:32

Gotta use < a better proxy > or something, J-Dog?

There's also progs for that sort of thing, if you didn't already know

(apologies if you did -- it's been a long day here, and I'm about ready to fall out completely)

Ah, Jack Inhoffe and Hugh Jass. Memories.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 26 2009,18:56

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 26 2009,18:32)
Gotta use < a better proxy > or something, J-Dog?

There's also progs for that sort of thing, if you didn't already know

(apologies if you did -- it's been a long day here, and I'm about ready to fall out completely)

Ah, Jack Inhoffe and Hugh Jass. Memories.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman - Thanks, I needed that.

And if I recall the story correctly, I have to wait for a couple days in the tomb before I get a couple of angels like Maya and Khan to get me reved up and ready to go, right?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 26 2009,21:00

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 26 2009,19:24)
Can I get some credit for being pre-banned?  I tried to unveil a brand new puppet, but Clivebaby won't even let his first comments through.

It's a sad day indeed, having to face up to the fact that my Puppeting Days are now over.  Well, I'll always have the memories of GLarson calling out BA^77 for not loving Jesus enough, UD will always have a lot of Jack Inhoffe and Denyse will always admire my Hugh Jass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




shit that was supposed to be a PM!
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 26 2009,21:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a sad day indeed, having to face up to the fact that my Puppeting Days are now over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, on the bright side - no strings attached.

Henry
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 26 2009,22:10

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 26 2009,18:56)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 26 2009,18:32)
Gotta use < a better proxy > or something, J-Dog?

There's also progs for that sort of thing, if you didn't already know

(apologies if you did -- it's been a long day here, and I'm about ready to fall out completely)

Ah, Jack Inhoffe and Hugh Jass. Memories.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman - Thanks, I needed that.

And if I recall the story correctly, I have to wait for a couple days in the tomb before I get a couple of angels like Maya and Khan to get me reved up and ready to go, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Abalootly. We'll be your crowd of witnesses for teh rapturous moment. Then ...

Step Three: profit!
(following Wee Billy D's sterling example)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 07 2009,07:04

The banning of Nymphaea caerulea displays the power of the Tard Side:

< 24 >
Clive Hayden
09/06/2009
10:44 am

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Gil takes advantage of a tardable moment:

< 33 >
GilDodgen
09/06/2009
9:04 pm

Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

< Problem is >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then their design "inference" is incorrect, as I was Blue Lotus and socle I'm guessing is David V.

I did make a post saying as much but as BL has been "retired" by Clive it did not even go into the moderation queue, just vanished.

So much for Clive being "absolutely" certain BL and David V are the same person. They get that wrong even after being absolutely certain, what else are they getting wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dvunkannon on Sep. 10 2009,17:32

Are we keeping track of pro-ID commenters that Clive,baby has subjected to moderation? I noticed Mapou recently complaining, and I thought BA^77 might be as well.

It was also amusing to see a recent comment wondering why the Timaeus/Allan MacNeil debate had never happened, apparently the poster was unaware that Timaeus had been banned by Scooter for being unable to talk about anything but religion.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 23 2009,22:36

My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated* at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative."

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too close to homeless, apparently.

This occurred on the < Shrinking Timeline > thread.

*A Hidden Obliviation, technically.

ETA: "Diffaxitive" and "Diffixative." I think that's what I said.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2009,21:44

CliveBaby wants to be a biiiiiig billy goat:

< 11 >
Clive Hayden
10/03/2009
9:16 pm

Yes, MeganC is a troll. This troll has been removed. MeganC’s purpose here was certainly not to have a useful discussion.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,07:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Seversky >: Just a brief note to thank those contributors such as Monastyrski, BillB, Learned Hand, Mark Frank, Jordan and Nakashima who have come to my defense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I haven't had an orthodox career, and I've wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn't feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Mark Frank >: I thought you had been banned! Remember to acknowledge the ID supporters (Joseph and to some extent Vjtorley) among your defenders.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this the not banned thread?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 06 2009,11:05

The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.

He asked, "Would you mind posting a quick FYI that Barrys thread is, indeed, a cowards trap?"

Indeed.

(LH was never a sock. He'll be joining us shortly.)
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 06 2009,11:56

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,09:05)
The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.

He asked, "Would you mind posting a quick FYI that Barrys thread is, indeed, a cowards trap?"

Indeed.

(LH was never a sock. He'll be joining us shortly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cripes, what a bunch of sleazeballs that crew is. They've got the morals of a turnip.
 No doubt it was LH pointing out Barry's contribution to the reputation of his profession.
 Welcome to the swamp, LH.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 08 2009,09:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BGOG is no longer with us. UD’s moderation policy is amended as follows: “Comments that do not attempt to add to a discussion but instead condemn the entire discussion (examples: “You post on this subject too often” or “What does this have to do with science”) will be deleted, and the commenter is subject to being placed in the moderation queue or banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Link >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:21

Quaggy banninated in that same thread. < Here >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:22

"todd" banned in that same thread < Here >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:23

"Gods ipod" banninated in that same thread < here >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 08 2009,12:27

Barry Arrington files intellectual chapter 11.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 08 2009,12:28

More like chapter 7, but nothing to liquidate.
Posted by: KCdgw on Oct. 08 2009,13:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 08 2009,12:27)
Barry Arrington files intellectual chapter 11.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently BA wants to simply masturbate in public without extraneous comment.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 08 2009,14:01

Is 5 banninations in a thread the record?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 36 >

DNA_Jock

10/08/2009

12:24 pm

SNIP, DNA_Jock is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And has anyone ever seen BarryA and DaveScot together in the same room?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2009,14:50

Holy shit.

< 191 >
John A. Davison
10/05/2006
6:57 pm

Who is left?
Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2009,16:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 08 2009,13:27)
Barry Arrington files intellectual chapter 11.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I sometimes wonder if the idea, that they are totally dishonest and cowardly, ever puts in a brief appearance in their thoughts.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 08 2009,20:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2009,15:50)
Holy shit.

< 191 >
John A. Davison
10/05/2006
6:57 pm

Who is left?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not Scooter. Schadenfreude, baby.

Barry "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Arrington might think about that.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 11 2009,06:53

ht: didymos:

< 178 >
steve_h
10/10/2009
5:53 pm

Editors: The thrust of this comment: “People who disagree with me are the type of people who fly airplanes into buildings.” The comment and the commenter have been deleted from this site.

Remarketh didymos:

Irony being, the thrust of Barry's whole post is "People who disagree with me are the type of people who rape kids/sample the choice flesh of 13-year olds."

And of course, there's his other post, the thrust of which is "People who disagree with me are the type of people who go to school and murder their classmates and teachers."

Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 11 2009,07:53

It is worth recalling < BarryA's > announcement of UD's "new" moderation policy:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb.  But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here...

...Our readers will then be in a position to see: (1) that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas; and (2) that theism in general and Christianity in particular is quite capable of defending itself against lies, distortions, illogical arguments, and misunderstandings. Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peh.

< 179 >
Seversky
10/10/2009
5:57 pm

DELETED.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 11 2009,08:06

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 08 2009,14:01)
Is 5 banninations in a thread the record?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 36 >

DNA_Jock

10/08/2009

12:24 pm

SNIP, DNA_Jock is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not any more! Six banninations in one thread is pretty damn impressive.

Do I hear seven? Can we get a 7? Baby needs a new pair of shoes, we have 6 and only need a seven to get to heaven, let's see it, UD. Toss those dice.
Posted by: steve_h on Oct. 11 2009,12:35

I didn't save my remark (but from memory)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don’t find that those who oppose homosexuality can be put in the same camp as those who fly airplanes into buildings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that if you divided humanity into two camps, one which opposes homosexuality and one that does not, the people that fly airplanes into buildings will be in the first one
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What I did not say was that anyone who disagrees with me is the type of person that flies planes into buildings.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 11 2009,12:38

Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 11 2009,12:35)
I didn't save my remark (but from memory)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don’t find that those who oppose homosexuality can be put in the same camp as those who fly airplanes into buildings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that if you divided humanity into two camps, one which opposes homosexuality and one that does not, the people that fly airplanes into buildings will be in the first one
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What I did not say was that anyone who disagrees with me is the type of person that flies planes into buildings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they could have left your message intact and banned you. But that would require *honesty*.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 11 2009,12:55

Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 11 2009,10:35)
I didn't save my remark (but from memory)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don’t find that those who oppose homosexuality can be put in the same camp as those who fly airplanes into buildings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that if you divided humanity into two camps, one which opposes homosexuality and one that does not, the people that fly airplanes into buildings will be in the first one
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What I did not say was that anyone who disagrees with me is the type of person that flies planes into buildings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's pretty much what I remember too.  I tried to rescue it from Google's cache, along with Seversky's, but the cached version stopped just shy of there.  Neither of them stood out as the sort of thing that's typically banworthy.  Then again, it is UD...
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 11 2009,14:46

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,12:23)
"Gods ipod" banninated in that same thread < here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gods iPod < subsequently unbanninated >.
Posted by: dogdidit on Dec. 10 2009,15:50

olin is barrybanned.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 12 >
Barry Arrington
12/10/2009
4:11 pm

Everyone is free to comment here, but if snarky putdowns are all you have to offer, don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the same category as olin, i.e., “no longer with us.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The < time tag > of olin's offending post is left dangling, like the cheshire cat's smile.

P.S. Had to hunt around for this thread; thanks for winterizing it, RBill. Shall I drain the oil back out and remove the spark plugs again?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 13 2009,17:58

Quote (dogdidit @ Dec. 10 2009,16:50)
olin is barrybanned.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 12 >
Barry Arrington
12/10/2009
4:11 pm

Everyone is free to comment here, but if snarky putdowns are all you have to offer, don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the same category as olin, i.e., “no longer with us.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The < time tag > of olin's offending post is left dangling, like the cheshire cat's smile.

P.S. Had to hunt around for this thread; thanks for winterizing it, RBill. Shall I drain the oil back out and remove the spark plugs again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you notice how it started on the first pull? A can of Stabil at the end of banning season does the trick.
Posted by: dogdidit on Dec. 14 2009,08:24

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 13 2009,17:58)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Dec. 10 2009,16:50)
olin is barrybanned.        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 12 >
Barry Arrington
12/10/2009
4:11 pm

Everyone is free to comment here, but if snarky putdowns are all you have to offer, don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the same category as olin, i.e., “no longer with us.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The < time tag > of olin's offending post is left dangling, like the cheshire cat's smile.

P.S. Had to hunt around for this thread; thanks for winterizing it, RBill. Shall I drain the oil back out and remove the spark plugs again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you notice how it started on the first pull? A can of Stabil at the end of banning season does the trick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stabil?! Man, how can you drink that stuff? I had to down a coupla red bulls just to wash the taste from my mouth.

Last spring I put the snow blower away with an entire bottle of Makers Mark. I'll stick with plan A, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 14 2009,08:59

Quote (dogdidit @ Dec. 14 2009,09:24)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 13 2009,17:58)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Dec. 10 2009,16:50)
olin is barrybanned.          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 12 >
Barry Arrington
12/10/2009
4:11 pm

Everyone is free to comment here, but if snarky putdowns are all you have to offer, don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the same category as olin, i.e., “no longer with us.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The < time tag > of olin's offending post is left dangling, like the cheshire cat's smile.

P.S. Had to hunt around for this thread; thanks for winterizing it, RBill. Shall I drain the oil back out and remove the spark plugs again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you notice how it started on the first pull? A can of Stabil at the end of banning season does the trick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stabil?! Man, how can you drink that stuff? I had to down a coupla red bulls just to wash the taste from my mouth.

Last spring I put the snow blower away with an entire bottle of Makers Mark. I'll stick with plan A, thankyouverymuch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not as sweet and fragrant as antifreeze, I'll give you that. But antifreeze is a girly drink.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 14 2009,11:19

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 11 2009,14:46)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,12:23)
"Gods ipod" banninated in that same thread < here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gods iPod < subsequently unbanninated >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of the links working now...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 28 2009,20:54

Voice Coil tells me that has been silently banned from the < Odds that End > thread, after a brief period on moderation. As a public service, he has provided a version of his last post. As easily seen, it is clearly in violation of UD's moderation policy:*
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When the sun goes down the fact remains that StephenB in 332, and again in 346, allows that certain quantum events may be uncaused.

Because the "law of causality" is silent, the only remaining source of adjudication regarding the causality/acausality of those phenomena is the science. And it so happens that the science asserts with both sound theoretical and ample empirical justification that the phenomena in question are in fact acausal.

Biped claims that StephenB's admission is a peripheral issue. But I think it central. It is an admission that there are facets of causation that ONLY the theoretical and empirical tools of science can affix, facets on which the "law of causality" is silent. Moreover we have what amounts to an admission (by omission) that other claims regarding the reach of the "law of causality" within the quantum domain (e.g. to particle decay) are made with no rationale whatsoever.

Biped likes battle metaphors, but others are more appropriate. For example, we need only find one hole in a bucket to know that it doesn't hold water. What the above establishes beyond dispute is that the premodern "law of causality" is poorly equipped to contain quantum phenomena.

With the declaration that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause," the law again comes into contact with quantum phenomena that arguably indicate otherwise. We know from the examples above that, with respect to quantum phenomena, the "law of causality" at times fails to hold water and at others is applied in an arbitrary and ad hoc manner. We also have the precedent that it is the science that must ultimately adjudicate these questions. I'll go with the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



* Don't elicit StephenB's idiocy. To avoid that, don't interact with StephenB.

(Cross-posted from the UD thread.)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 30 2009,06:33

The above deserves a correction: my comment failed to appear at all for about 12 hours, then appeared with a moderation message attached (indicating that only I could see it) for about another 12. By then I had tested my assumption that I was banned by attempting to post again, so two versions of the post languished in moderation all day. They were at last permitted to appear.

Of course, VC's comments should never have entered moderation in the first place, and should not be there now.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Jan. 06 2010,17:53

Is waterbear no longer with us, or is that his own comment? Interesting if Barry banninated him, then wrote a talking to the empty chair comment on the WWND thread.

If a whore dropped a used tampon on the street and a dog smelled it and barfed on it and a fly laid an egg on it and a maggot hatched and ate it, the shit from that maggot would have more class than Barry Arrington, Esquire. Just sayin'
Posted by: Jkrebs on Jan. 07 2010,15:24

Would the powers that be here (Recip. Bill, I imagine) make a note of the demise of Hazel and Dave Wisker at the hand of (under the hammer of) Barry.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 07 2010,18:21

The < Nietzschesplanatory Filter > at work:

First:



Later:



Then followed:

hazel
01/07/2010
2:29 pm

Your a coward, a bully, and a hypocrite, Barry. I’ve made a reasonable point, and despite all your blustering about the value of dialog and discussion, you can’t handle it.

And I’m saving this for posterity – delete and ban away.

15
hazel
01/07/2010
2:35 pm

And honestly, why would anyone who doesn’t agree with you want to bother posting here? It’s like a junior high chat room, not a place for adults.

16
hazel
01/07/2010
2:47 pm

And last, how can you guys go on and on about objective morals, and yet fail so badly to be upright. Don’t you see the faintest bit of irony and hypocrisy in failing to apply the Golden Rule, and in treating those who come here as if they, and their opinions, despite your disagreement, had some inherent dignity, and were not someone and something to reject because you did like them?

17
hazel
01/07/2010
2:52 pm

Oops – last line should be “not someone and something to reject because you did not like them?

18
Dave Wisker
01/07/2010
2:54 pm

"And honestly, why would anyone who doesn’t agree with you want to bother posting here? It’s like a junior high chat room, not a place for adults."

Agreed, Hazel. I will not abide such clumsy,hamfisted attempts to supress discussion. Ban away, Barry, you arrogant hypocrite.

19
hazel
01/07/2010
3:06 pm

Irony quote from the OP, from Barry:

“For Nietzsche, “good” does not mean adherence to a moral standard. Instead, it is more or less a synonym for “strong.”

Seems like Barry likes playing the little Nietzsche here – no standards, just power.

And now:



The ability to comment is not the only thing that is closed at UD.

Barry Arrington:
 
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb.  But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Liar.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 08 2010,08:16

Self bannination, or something else?  You decide...

In the excitement elsewhere we missed < waterbear talking to himself >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3

waterbear

01/06/2010

6:01 pm

waterbear is an obvious troll and is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heinrich is probably confused by this as well.
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 13 2010,07:11

It's official! Before, comments would show as awaiting moderation. But after the latest round of deletions, new comments just disappear into the ozone.

Silent Bannination! Among the offending posts was one about < mammary glands >.  

< >

The real reason might be because there was some interest in the question of the nested hierarchy, and how we can recognize this pattern in biology. The Tard Bosses had to stop it before the meme spread amongst the Tard Minions. There can be no resolution of this fundamental issue, because ID absolutely depends on equivocation.

Interestingly, there are a number of questions being addressed to Zachriel, but Zachriel doesn't reply! ID wins again!

-
Updated Signature

Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 13 2010,07:16

Um, is this Tardhalla? We were expecting something, you know, a little different.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 13 2010,07:47

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2010,07:16)
Um, is this Tardhalla? We were expecting something, you know, a little different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA HA THIS IS YOU


Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 13 2010,10:40

Got milk?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 13 2010,10:55

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2010,08:11)
It's official! Before, comments would show as awaiting moderation. But after the latest round of deletions, new comments just disappear into the ozone.

Silent Bannination! Among the offending posts was one about < mammary glands >.  

< >

The real reason might be because there was some interest in the question of the nested hierarchy, and how we can recognize this pattern in biology. The Tard Bosses had to stop it before the meme spread amongst the Tard Minions. There can be no resolution of this fundamental issue, because ID absolutely depends on equivocation.

Interestingly, there are a number of questions being addressed to Zachriel, but Zachriel doesn't reply! ID wins again!

-
Updated Signature

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was going to say, "unbelievable!"

But what could be more believable than this?

Thank you for your most excellent (and most courteous) contributions, Zachriel. They throw the unalloyed nitwittery of UD into stark relief.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 13 2010,10:58

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 13 2010,10:55)
They throw the unalloyed nitwittery of UD into stark snark relief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FT4U.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 13 2010,11:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 13 2010,18:58)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 13 2010,10:55)
They throw the unalloyed nitwittery of UD into stark snark relief.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FT4U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GMTA .....HOMO!  :angry:
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 13 2010,15:03

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2010,02:16)
Um, is this Tardhalla? We were expecting something, you know, a little different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Time for another experiment?
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 14 2010,07:07

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 13 2010,15:03)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2010,02:16)
Um, is this Tardhalla? We were expecting something, you know, a little different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Time for another experiment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< See ... >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 16 2010,20:48

Alas, Voice Coil is no more.

Always remember, Clive: Banninnation is yet another time-worn form of creationist obscurantism. But I do accept the compliment.
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Jan. 17 2010,05:09

Wait, if I honestly believe no one could have the ignorant viewpoint on adaptive phenotypic plasticity that RichardTHughes has without flying a plane into a building someday, isn't it my scientific duty to say so?

Or would you all rather censor the progress of science like a bunch of fascists?

I'm not saying everyone who believes plasticity generates novel opportunities for selection to act flies planes into buildings, because some of them are probably handicapped or afraid of flying.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Jan. 17 2010,14:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 17 2010,15:48)
Alas, Voice Coil is no more.

Always remember, Clive: Banninnation is yet another time-worn form of creationist obscurantism. But I do accept the compliment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clivebaby (hi Clive!) announces a (not-so-rare-now) < double bannination >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
tribune7,

h.pesoj is the same sock puppet as George L. Farquar. He’s no longer with us. I had previously banned him under George, and now he’s gone under his backwards “josep.h” name. Also, to whomever is interested, Voice Coil is no longer with us, because that was a sock puppet for Diffaxial, who I had previously banned. In short, they were both old sock puppets from the past, previously banned, and now banned again, nothing new to see here. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Jan. 17 2010,15:19

I wonder how Clive has matched up the old and new socks?  ID detection?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 17 2010,15:45

IP detection?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 17 2010,15:49

Quote (Jkrebs @ Jan. 17 2010,15:19)
I wonder how Clive has matched up the old and new socks?  ID detection?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about matching, but I'm fairly certain he knew they were socks thanks to IQ detection.

ETA verbs!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 18 2010,03:10

Clive bans and bans and bans, but it is never enough:

< 218 >

Clive Hayden
01/17/2010
3:33 pm

tribune7,

h.pesoj is the same sock puppet as George L. Farquar. He’s no longer with us. I had previously banned him under George, and now he’s gone under his backwards “josep.h” name. Also, to whomever is interested, Voice Coil is no longer with us, because that was a sock puppet for Diffaxial, who I had previously banned. In short, they were both old sock puppets from the past, previously banned, and now banned again, nothing new to see here.

Only problem with that reasoning, Clive, is that Diffaxial was banned for the sole reason that he systematically disassembled StephenB's tiresomely repetitive premodern arguments, laying bare his tautological, constantly changing and inconsistently applied "eternal truths" and "rules of right reason" for the obsolete horseshit they are. We all understand you were embarrassed for him, and the only recourse was the banning stick.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 18 2010,05:45

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 17 2010,15:45)
IP detection?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't be. I, er, understand that pesoj was using various proxys.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Mar. 18 2010,07:21

I (David Kellogg) haz been banned.

ETA: This is a silent bannination.  

ETA2: "You fungus, you continuous gangrene."  --Ezra Pound
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 30 2010,17:42

< BarryA: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < BarryA: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric080 [in 1] and hrun8015 [in 2] are both fools. I am sorry I must use such harsh terms, but it is quite literally true that Eric080 and hrun8015 are fools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Barry. Were I to sock up and call you a hypocrite, would it be a defense to apologetically note that you really ARE a hypocrite?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 30 2010,18:00

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2010,17:42)
< BarryA: >
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < BarryA: >
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric080 [in 1] and hrun8015 [in 2] are both fools. I am sorry I must use such harsh terms, but it is quite literally true that Eric080 and hrun8015 are fools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Barry. Were I to sock up and call you a hypocrite, would it be a defense to apologetically note that you really ARE a hypocrite?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's almost as if there are two BarryAs.
Posted by: Aardvark on Mar. 30 2010,18:37

< BarryA: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...if it can be demonstrated that a pedophile’s pleasure from molesting children is greater than the suffering he causes, then, for that pedophile, molesting children should be considered “good.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why does he have to bring the Catholic Church into this?
Posted by: Hermagoras on April 05 2010,07:34

composer has been banninated without notice!  

When clive said he had < not called anybody names > after writing

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your point of view is of course claptrap elitist nonsense that is part and parcel of a narrow worldview and a narrow experience set that is usually held by socially-inept atheistic shut-ins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

,
composer pointed out that this was like Nixon's "plausible deniability," one step away from name-calling.  That comment appeared but then disappeared without comment, and a little bird tells me composer has been silently banned.  

Clive, I won't call you names on UD, but over here I'll gladly note that you're a gutless prick unable to acknowledge his own decisions.
Posted by: FrankH on April 05 2010,07:44

Quote (Aardvark @ Mar. 30 2010,18:37)
< BarryA: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...if it can be demonstrated that a pedophile’s pleasure from molesting children is greater than the suffering he causes, then, for that pedophile, molesting children should be considered “good.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why does he have to bring the Catholic Church into this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Like all "good evangelicals", Barry A. is delighting in the suffering of children at the hands of the Great Whore of Babylon.

The next thing they are waiting to see is when it is revealed that this site is supported by the RCC and when the Pope marches his armies into the Holy Land.

All of that after of course we get our "identification tattoos" and the RCC comes out and states it has been in charge of the UN all this time and dissolves all nations into "One World Government".
Posted by: Ptaylor on April 11 2010,21:43

< Clivebaby > bans for the crime of having been banned before:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Winston,

Mustela Nivalis was a sock puppet that I have banned twice before, so this makes a third time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 13 2010,17:00

Clive:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Atom,

Hans was a sock puppet that I’ve banned many times previously, so I banned him or her again. Sorry for letting him/her ramble on. :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >

Hans Fritzsche, minister for Nazi propaganda, bites the dust.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 14 2010,08:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 13 2010,17:00)
Clive:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Atom,

Hans was a sock puppet that I’ve banned many times previously, so I banned him or her again. Sorry for letting him/her ramble on. :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >

Hans Fritzsche, minister for Nazi propaganda, bites the dust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His bravery in the face of  ID prevarication / provocation will be missed.  Gott Mit Uns, Herr Fritz.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 23 2010,20:06

Craniums are neither wanted nor needed at UD:

< 7 >
Clive Hayden
04/22/2010
12:08 pm

osteonectin,

    uprigth, are you discussing with your own cranium?

There was a commenter named “cranium”, who I banned and deleted his comment.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 25 2010,17:27

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 23 2010,18:06)
Craniums are neither wanted nor needed at UD:

< 7 >
Clive Hayden
04/22/2010
12:08 pm

osteonectin,

    uprigth, are you discussing with your own cranium?

There was a commenter named “cranium”, who I banned and deleted his comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


crania
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 25 2010,18:21

Quote (fnxtr @ April 25 2010,18:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 23 2010,18:06)
Craniums are neither wanted nor needed at UD:

< 7 >
Clive Hayden
04/22/2010
12:08 pm

osteonectin,

    uprigth, are you discussing with your own cranium?

There was a commenter named “cranium”, who I banned and deleted his comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


crania
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both forms are acceptable. Check it out. Plus extension of one's pinkie is necessary to refer to crania, difficult while typing.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 26 2010,00:55

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2010,16:21)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 25 2010,18:27)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 23 2010,18:06)
Craniums are neither wanted nor needed at UD:

< 7 >
Clive Hayden
04/22/2010
12:08 pm

osteonectin,

    uprigth, are you discussing with your own cranium?

There was a commenter named “cranium”, who I banned and deleted his comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


crania
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both forms are acceptable. Check it out. Plus extension of one's pinkie is necessary to refer to crania, difficult while typing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But necessary for a lady during the proper consumption of tea, don't you know.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 04 2010,06:29

Several squatting intellects at UD are < clamoring > for a response from Merthin Builder.

Phaedros wants one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Phaedros

Merthin Builder-
Here’s a pertinent quote from C.S. Lewis which might get you on your way, “If I ?nd in myself a desire which no experience?in the world can satisfy, the most probable?explanation is that I was made for another?world.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Above" wants one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
above

@Merthin Builder. You said:
“It always seemed to me that the fact that the insinuation into the human brain of a physical substance consisting of a dozen or so atoms arranged into a well-understood structure can trigger such profound changes in consciousness establishes beyond a doubt the fact that consciousness is grounded in and is a property of the physical and functional organization of the brain” That is a very extravagant claim to make...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Batshit wants one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Batshit77

Merthin Builder, I don’t get it, What exactly are you trying to establish with your post? Do you really want to try to defend that consciousness is merely a “emergent” property of the brain?…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Batshit REALLY wants one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Batshit77

Merthin Builder, I still would like to know exactly where you wanted to go with your line of reasoning, if you could unpackage it for me I would appreciate it. I get the strong drift you are trying to maintain the wrong position that we are purely material beings, But you denied that yet I resolutely hold the that we are indeed,,,?,,, Spirits in the material World – Police
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now < Collin > wants one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Collin

Merthin Builder,

It’s not just drugs that alter consciousness. Everything that happens to someone has an affect on their consciousness. All painful and pleasurable experiences alter the brain and the consciousness of people...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alas, they won't receive one. You gonna tell 'em Cowardly Clive, or just let 'em pine away for more?

Now, on to read "Intelligent Design Uncensored."

[ETA: Collin]
Posted by: J-Dog on May 04 2010,07:50

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

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Dembski,

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 05 2010,18:18

Clivebaby:

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

Truism is no longer a truism here.

Here's one that is:

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
-Robert Heinlein
Posted by: BillB on May 13 2010,02:57

< madbat089 is gone >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
165
Clive Hayden
05/13/2010
2:26 am

madbat089,

Goodbye.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 13 2010,05:54

Quote (BillB @ May 13 2010,03:57)
< madbat089 is gone >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
165
Clive Hayden
05/13/2010
2:26 am

madbat089,

Goodbye.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< BarryA: >
   

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


Or, just ban you.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 13 2010,08:21

Makes you wonder how these folks can face their kids.
Posted by: Texas Teach on May 13 2010,17:13

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


I see them banning the kid from the dinner table/room/house if they ask uncomfortable questions.  Then they keep talking to their wives and pretend the kid is still there but doesn't have anything to say.
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 20 2010,21:33

didymos on the UD thread:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oops.  Thornton directly < dissed > the Dr. Dr. on his own thread:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Dembski, it certainly is a pity you are forced to grab at the coattails of tin-foil-hat wearing AGW deniers in a convoluted attempt to show how ‘Big Science’ is holding back ID. The enemy of your enemy is your friend I suppose. But is it really worth flushing the remaining bit of your scientific integrity down the loo to try and score cheap points for the frankly flat-lining ID hypothesis? Wouldn’t it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell “Conspiracy!! Oppression!!’ without evidence so many times before people stop listening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Batshit's got Bill's < back >(side kissed):  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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



Well, Thornton's done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed. < WAD >:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 20 2010,22:28

Cross posted:

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zolar Czakl >:
05/20/2010
6:05 am

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

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


           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
StephenB
05/20/2010
9:06 am

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


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

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

Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 21 2010,06:23

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

thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

What does that even mean?
Posted by: JohnW on May 21 2010,10:20

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

thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

What does that even mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It means that thornton's behind the times, and Dr Dr D lost the last vestige of credibility years ago.
Posted by: J-Dog on May 21 2010,10:35

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

thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

What does that even mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



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

pps onlookers - Is it really a forum, when dissent is discouraged?  Shouldn't UD be more properly called an echo chamber?
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 20 2010,08:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15

Clive Hayden

06/20/2010

3:11 am
Nakashima is not Asian, it’s a sock puppet name, he’s been banned from here many times, his handle at After The Bar Closes is dvunkannon. He part of those folks that watch us like hyenas, you’d think with all their bloviating about their “scientific knowledge” they would actually discuss science instead of watching us like hyenas. We discuss actual ideas and science here, they just discuss us. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to mind their nonsense—it’s a sick internet culture that’s pervasive with them. To all of you at After the Asylum Closes, the gloves are off.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

Post morteming this a bit, Nak's bannination clearly follows his outing of StephenB as the writer of such pleasantries as "psychotic Pharisee", and then the posting of Nak's deleted messages on AtBC. Nothing to do with the thread on which it appears, where Nak is having a mutually respectful discussion with niwrad.
Posted by: khan on June 20 2010,10:19

"watch us like hyenas"  ?
Posted by: rossum on June 20 2010,11:45

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


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

:)

rossum
Posted by: Seversky on June 20 2010,19:24

I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned.  My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.
Posted by: Ptaylor on June 20 2010,20:38

Clive (hi Clive!) is having a busy day. Ena Sharples correctly predicted she would be removed from the cast, and Clive confirms:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ena Sharples, also known as George L Farquhar, MikeKratch, PhilipBaxter, Blue Lotus, Mach Six, Mustela Nivalis, h.pesoj, Moseph, and Echidna-Levy,
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ve only just registered on this site, but I suspect from what I’ve seen here I won’t be around too long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say you just registered at this site? Sure thing……You suspect rightly about not being around too long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 20 2010,20:55

Quote (Ptaylor @ June 20 2010,21:38)
Clive (hi Clive!) is having a busy day. Ena Sharples correctly predicted she would be removed from the cast, and Clive confirms:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ena Sharples, also known as George L Farquhar, MikeKratch, PhilipBaxter, Blue Lotus, Mach Six, Mustela Nivalis, h.pesoj, Moseph, and Echidna-Levy,
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ve only just registered on this site, but I suspect from what I’ve seen here I won’t be around too long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say you just registered at this site? Sure thing……You suspect rightly about not being around too long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Before:



After:



You're loosing it Clive, swinging blindly. We like that.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 20 2010,21:16

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


Seversky!
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 20 2010,23:23

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


That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.
Posted by: Quack on June 21 2010,00:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You suspect rightly about not being around too long
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The predictive power of ID?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 21 2010,01:08


Posted by: Henry J on June 21 2010,14:48

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


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


Sure, but apparently rational voices are against their lack of principle!
Posted by: Cubist on June 21 2010,17:41

Quote (Henry J @ June 21 2010,14:48)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2010,22:23)
Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned.  My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

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

I beg to differ. Apparently rational voices are UD's bread and butter! It's genuinely rational voices that they have trouble with...
Posted by: Seversky on June 21 2010,22:10

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


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


Thanks, although I always felt that the wily Nakashima was more effective.  Please pass on my congratulations on his marriage to the Czech supermodel, by the way.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 21 2010,22:43

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


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


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


Consider it done.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 07 2010,20:10

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

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

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

Wait.

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

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

Well, don't do < this >:
   

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


Got that? That's why.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 11 2010,04:24

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

 Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010

appeared!



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

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

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

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

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

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



Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?
Posted by: Zachriel on July 11 2010,09:03

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


Zachriel's reply is currently in moderation.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 11 2010,09:08

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

 Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010

appeared!

                 

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

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

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

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

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

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



Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Rich:
                 

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


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

Rich:
                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Undoubtedly we missed some. Rich thinks this is OK.

Rich:
         

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

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

I accept that.

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

You offered a sort of exchange:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if Rob or Diffaxial will acknowledge that I did not say that physical events can occur without sufficient causes, I will extend my apologies for escalating the dialogue to new levels and retract all personal comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don’t care about retraction of personal comments. Readers can judge for themselves the honesty (etc.) of my contributions. The exchange that interests me is that you cease repeating misleading characterizations of prior conversations to score rhetorical points. In exchange I will drop that issue, as well as questions surrounding the interpretation of your ambiguous statement vis necessary versus sufficient causes. I can’t stop believing what I believe about your statement (and to say otherwise would be dishonest), but I can certainly stop commenting upon it. I’ll allow you the same slack: You needn’t concede anything about your prior statements. Just agree to stop making them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Diffaxial was silently banned not long after that.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 11 2010,13:48

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

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

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

Wait.

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

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

Well, don't do < this >:
     

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


Got that? That's why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could really use a link to the original quote.

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


Posted by: carlsonjok on July 11 2010,14:00

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2010,09:08)
I count 31 bannings in the last year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


32.  You can add to the list:

efren ts
Posted by: J-Dog on July 11 2010,17:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 11 2010,14:00)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2010,09:08)
I count 31 bannings in the last year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


32.  You can add to the list:

efren ts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


33.  You forgot about the short time when barry tried to stop Jack Inhoffe...  or do Barry's life style decisions and/pr puppets get a pass?


[QUOTE]Barry A has had enough JackInHofe:
   Quote  
JackInhofe is no longer with us.

- From the very tasteless Is this Darwin's legacy thread. Jack's comment is nowhere to be seen - if it did appear did anyone catch it?

Jack had the temerity to call out Andrew Sibley for being a racist bastard, and then accused Sibley of drinking from the sour Ben Stein kool-aid.

I guess Andrew couldn't handle the truth and had to go whine to Barry. Pussy.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments >
Posted by: Zachriel on July 12 2010,12:14

Quote (Zachriel @ July 11 2010,09:03)
     
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,04:24)
Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zachriel's reply is currently in moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich: The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID.

< Zachriel > #21311: That is incorrect. Zachriel has been banned multiple times, not a single one of which was due to untoward behavior, but for on-topic disagreements. < This comment > resulted in a silent bannination, and a purge of many previous posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unfortunately, the link to "< This comment >" doesn't work. Biologos dropped the semicolons in the URL.

< http://tinyurl.com/38yczcc >
Posted by: Seversky on July 12 2010,22:58

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,04:24)
Recently I've been reading (and occasionally commenting) at< Biologos blog >. In response to my remarking that UD moderation  is arbitrary and biased, this comment by:

 Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010

appeared!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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



Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forgive me for stating the obvious but Rich is full of it.

Although I can guess why, in my case  there was neither warning of nor reason given for the ban.  My posts simply stopped appearing.

As I have stated before, they are fully entitled to ban whomsoever they like but it makes Rich's - admittedly tongue-in-cheek - reference to being "thrown out of court" somewhat ironic; I was neither informed of the charges against me nor given the opportunity to confront my accusers and present the case for the defense.  

So much for UD's sense of justice (hi, Clive).
Posted by: dvunkannon on July 15 2010,07:29

Quote (Seversky @ July 12 2010,23:58)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,04:24)
Recently I've been reading (and occasionally commenting) at< Biologos blog >. In response to my remarking that UD moderation  is arbitrary and biased, this comment by:

 Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010

appeared!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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



Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forgive me for stating the obvious but Rich is full of it.

Although I can guess why, in my case  there was neither warning of nor reason given for the ban.  My posts simply stopped appearing.

As I have stated before, they are fully entitled to ban whomsoever they like but it makes Rich's - admittedly tongue-in-cheek - reference to being "thrown out of court" somewhat ironic; I was neither informed of the charges against me nor given the opportunity to confront my accusers and present the case for the defense.  

So much for UD's sense of justice (hi, Clive).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the heads up, I've responded to Rich as well.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on July 15 2010,08:04

There is this infamous OP about "Junk Religion" concocted by Cornelius Hunter < http://tinyurl.com/38fmg3v >

Three posts refer to a comment by Hornspiel - who must have been messily devoured by the God of the Banhammer. Did anyone read it before it disappeared?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 14 2010,22:33

Barry Arrington:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Barry Arrington:

< 78 >
Barry Arrington
08/08/2010
11:50 pm

veilsofmaya continues to erect strawmen and refues to address ID as it is instead of as he distorts it. It is useless to argue with a person who refuses to see reason.

And dog mites ban.
Posted by: Turncoat on Aug. 18 2010,22:23

All of my UD identities I can remember:

  1. Tom English
  2. Thom English
  3. Thomas English
  4. T M English
  5. austin english
  6. Turner Coates
  7. Cloud of Unknowing
  8. Semiotic 007
  9. Liz Lizard
 10. Sal Gal
 11. Mystic
 12. Oatmeal Stout
 13. Atticus Finch
 14. CEC09
 15. Hamlet
 16. Sooner Emeritus

Rumination < here >.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 19 2010,09:20

Quote (Turncoat @ Aug. 18 2010,22:23)
All of my UD identities I can remember:

  1. Tom English
  2. Thom English
  3. Thomas English
  4. T M English
  5. austin english
  6. Turner Coates
  7. Cloud of Unknowing
  8. Semiotic 007
  9. Liz Lizard
 10. Sal Gal
 11. Mystic
 12. Oatmeal Stout
 13. Atticus Finch
 14. CEC09
 15. Hamlet
 16. Sooner Emeritus

Rumination < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just posted on your blog as Gary Larson - my first UD sock - mainly to say thanks for the laughs and pointing out the inconsistencies and errors at UD.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Aug. 19 2010,10:54

Quote (Turncoat @ Aug. 18 2010,23:23)
All of my UD identities I can remember:

  1. Tom English
  2. Thom English
  3. Thomas English
  4. T M English
  5. austin english
  6. Turner Coates
  7. Cloud of Unknowing
  8. Semiotic 007
  9. Liz Lizard
 10. Sal Gal
 11. Mystic
 12. Oatmeal Stout
 13. Atticus Finch
 14. CEC09
 15. Hamlet
 16. Sooner Emeritus

Rumination < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've left you a comment as well. Thanks for trying to make a difference.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 19 2010,12:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< markf >: Yes I am Mark Frank. For some reason my old ID stopped working and I had to change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For some reason ...
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 23 2010,08:19



Now will Clive allow € 20 to go to those evilutionists? Or will his urge to banninate for Jesus be insurmountable?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 28 2010,04:04

Uh-oh! < Clive >has kept Petrushka's comments in moderation for quite some time, some of them for twelve hours.
And I wonder if < this > is a veiled threat:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You quoted what I wrote only in part and then changed the subject ... I’ve noticed you change the subject quite often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 28 2010,04:49

wrong thread.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Sep. 04 2010,13:14

Hey Clive, < you know what you did > when you banned DNYjock, don't you? Keep banning posters if you want to support real science.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Sep. 29 2010,15:37

Moderation has driven markf to a < desperate solution >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One hobby was, until recently, commenting on some of the entrenched Intelligent Design blogs – particularly Uncommon Descent. This blog is notorious for arbitrary censoring and banning of contributors who do not support the party line.  For many years I led a charmed life but was recently placed into what those responsible for the blog call moderation. Moderation means that all your comments are inspected before they are published. This can result in a delay of 24 hours  and may well mean your comment is not be published at all.  I decided this made it no longer worthwhile to comment on UD. So instead I created this blog – hence the title: In Moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He < links to it at UD >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, instead of trying to show where your logic is wrong I thought I would take a moore (sic) positive approach. I am sorry it is so very long. This a shortened version. A fuller version is on my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will the link survive?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2010,20:56

Will the link survive? With the wieners that run that BB? It seems more likely that it will be out on its buns!

Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 25 2010,17:14

Hidden Obliviation remains the bannitool of choice at UD:

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 25 2010,10:30)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 25 2010,09:18)
Tee Hee

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-366464 >



     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5

jurassicmac

10/25/2010

8:35 am
Great article. I pity those who continue with the pointless acts of ‘investigation.’ They could avoid wasting so much time on that fruitless ‘research’ if only they knew that the whole process has already been explained: God did it.

Maybe someday they’ll see the light and give up this relentless pursuit of ‘knowledge.’

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally, a mechnaism!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then.... it was gone.


Paging R. Bill to the banninations thread. (No, I wasn't DurrasicMac) - I wonder how many truefundies© have been expelled! due to nixplanitory false positives?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 25 2010,18:14

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 25 2010,17:14)
Hidden Obliviation remains the bannitool of choice at UD:

 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 25 2010,10:30)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 25 2010,09:18)
Tee Hee

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-366464 >



         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5

jurassicmac

10/25/2010

8:35 am
Great article. I pity those who continue with the pointless acts of ‘investigation.’ They could avoid wasting so much time on that fruitless ‘research’ if only they knew that the whole process has already been explained: God did it.

Maybe someday they’ll see the light and give up this relentless pursuit of ‘knowledge.’

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally, a mechnaism!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then.... it was gone.


Paging R. Bill to the banninations thread. (No, I wasn't DurrasicMac) - I wonder how many truefundies© have been expelled! due to nixplanitory false positives?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone out there claiming insurance payment?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,21:53

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-------------------


Look who's talking about hypocrisy. You and your sycophants are the biggest hypocrites of all.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,22:05


Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 20 2011,23:12

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:53)
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-------------------


Look who's talking about hypocrisy. You and your sycophants are the biggest hypocrites of all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Kris. How are you? Cuppa tea?

I can tell you're confused by being able to post on any thread and that your posts go through automatically. Clearly we're not on par with such bastions of free speech as ENV, Telic thoughts, Uncommon Dissent, but we're working on it.

Would you agree that [total of banned people] / [total number of posters ] is a good indicator of how strict moderation / censorship is on a board?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,03:04

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2011,23:12)
Would you agree that [total of banned people] / [total number of posters ] is a good indicator of how strict moderation / censorship is on a board?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a question, and I suspect that people like Kris don't do "questions".

Questions might lead to thinking, which might lead to dancing.

And you know what dancing leads to!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 21 2011,03:20

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:53)
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-------------------


Look who's talking about hypocrisy. You and your sycophants are the biggest hypocrites of all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got an archive of my email. Included in it are several personal abusive emails from David "DaveScot" Springer. In other words, I made an empirical claim with evidence behind it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 21 2011,08:51

< Another one >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jimpithecus | January 21, 2011 7:37 AM | Reply | Edit

It’s gone!!! I left a comment last night on Uncommon Descent that contained no name-calling, no hateful references and no ad hominem attacks but simply disagreed with what she wrote and this morning, I find that the comment has become one with the snows of yesteryear. How can someone call themselves a journalist with any integrity and remove comments they don’t agree with? O’Leary wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   “And, by the way, when Evolution Sunday rolls around in 2011, all Christian Darwinists should pause to reflect on how much their faith owes to these people. (I mention this because I am knee-deep in these blessed dimes of Darwin, for some project I am stuck with.)”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is what I wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Why on earth would my faith owe these people anything? My faith in Jesus and my acceptance of evolutionary biology doesn’t hinge on whether or not these people are atheists. These people were atheists long before they supported evolution. And evolution has been around a lot longer than they have.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Somehow that was too much for her to handle.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 06 2011,03:24

In case anyone is still following  silent banninations at UD, aiguy, who was tying the usual suspect in knots in < this thread >  (his < last comment >) < reports > elsewhere being put in perpetual moderation.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted a couple times over at uncommondescent, but apparently offended somebody and now I'm on banished to interminable "hold for moderation" purgatory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 06 2011,18:43

Let us remember that old adage - all things in moderation!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 07 2011,13:04

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 06 2011,03:24)
In case anyone is still following  silent banninations at UD, aiguy, who was tying the usual suspect in knots in < this thread >  (his < last comment >) < reports > elsewhere being put in perpetual moderation.          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted a couple times over at uncommondescent, but apparently offended somebody and now I'm on banished to interminable "hold for moderation" purgatory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


aiguy not only tied them up in knots but then proceeded to skewer the lot of em.

< chunkdz >:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that the code of life is globally optimal (given plausible pre-biotic conditions), along with the fact that it hasn't changed significantly in 4 billion years (it's hard to improve upon a global optimum) tells us that the designer of life either got really lucky right off the bat or had learned how to design an optimal code. Evolution is not in the business of making a globally optimal anything.

I think you are looking at the problem as a designer rather than a forensic investigator. 4 billion years into the program we are looking for traces and clues, not hard examples of the designer in action. Or as Mike Gene says, "the faint echoes of teleology".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet only the other day  < Gordon > was arguing that cows could not have evolved. So hardly "the faint echoes of teleology".

This wiki page on < Aurochs >says the designer must have been fiddling round in the plains with them not very long ago at all. Like Gordon says
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Others might want to point out that the body plan involved is well beyond the FSCO/I threshold, so there is a serious question whether we have a mechanism per Darwinist evolutionary theory, that would substantiate that claim, much less observed evidence that would make it conclusive as “fact.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or is it still "just a cow"?

It's all so confusing! That's the thing about ID. You can study at one school but beware should you transfer just before the exams! Same answers written down, but you fail because you changed schools!

It's a shame that there's no central venue where they can all make their case, support with evidence and then all agree to get behind the party that makes the best case and follow that evidence to where it leads.

Oh, er. Um. Yes.

EDIT: Cross posted to here. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y182728 >
Posted by: didymos on April 13 2011,18:22

< Bannination >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry Arrington

04/13/2011

5:18 pm

Muramasa is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, of course. That's what you get for demonstrating intellectual honesty.

[< crossposted > to Uncommonly Dense thread]
Posted by: Hermagoras on April 14 2011,12:19

Don't think the announcement of Muramasa's banning suggests anything like honesty.  I happen to know that QuiteID has been banned without any notice, leaving folks at UD to believe that QID has run away.  

Dear Clive, Dear Barry: that little troll Joseph frequently uses the term "intellectual coward."  In cases like this, it applies to you.

Man up and let Quite ID back in the game, or have the decency to explain why.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 14 2011,13:17

Edit - wrong thread
Posted by: PTET on April 17 2011,07:09

< idcurious > and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 17 2011,07:11

Idcurious Yellow:*
 
Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,05:46)
< idcurious > has been silently banned, with some posts vanished. The UD regulars are clucking away how he's run off leaving their points unanswered. Just another day in that vacuum of intellect and integrity which is Uncommon Descent.

His life is archived < here >, mainly because it will annoy Clive.

Apologies to anyone who sat through it. Sorry too, Sparc, that IDC didn't get to reference the 1969 Nobel Prize. It was next on his list.

Hello again Onlookers. It's been a while since I de-lurked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*ETA: (it is UD that is yellow, naturally.)
Posted by: Kristine on April 17 2011,13:03

Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,07:09)
< idcurious > and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." -George Orwell, 1984

Not the "freedom" to "compromise" and say that, looking at the same evidence, some conclude that it is 3.5, or the "freedom" to "teach the controversy" about it equaling 4.
Posted by: khan on April 17 2011,13:09

Quote (Kristine @ April 17 2011,14:03)
Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,07:09)
< idcurious > and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." -George Orwell, 1984

Not the "freedom" to "compromise" and say that, looking at the same evidence, some conclude that it is 3.5, or the "freedom" to "teach the controversy" about it equaling 4.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And at the end of the book, he admitted that 2 + 2 = 5.
Posted by: Kristine on April 17 2011,13:47

Quote (khan @ April 17 2011,13:09)
Quote (Kristine @ April 17 2011,14:03)
 
Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,07:09)
< idcurious > and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." -George Orwell, 1984

Not the "freedom" to "compromise" and say that, looking at the same evidence, some conclude that it is 3.5, or the "freedom" to "teach the controversy" about it equaling 4.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And at the end of the book, he admitted that 2 + 2 = 5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. As the folks at UD claim, someday we will all learn to love Big Brother Designer.
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2011,18:21

2 + 2 = 5 for really large values of 2.
Posted by: lkeithlu on April 18 2011,16:17

Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,07:09)
< idcurious > and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup-the few posts I've written in the last 3 1/2 days are still hidden. Cowards. They didn't have the decency to ban me publicly. I should demand my public banning NOW!

What good is negative attention if no one else sees it?
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 18 2011,17:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What good is negative attention if no one else sees it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can I again suggest a sock-withdrawal experiment. Being ignored is much less fun than being told you are wrong. It worked for a while at TT and, from personal experience, I know it works with children and dogs. Why not use Side-Wiki instead?
Posted by: lkeithlu on April 18 2011,17:46

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 18 2011,17:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What good is negative attention if no one else sees it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can I again suggest a sock-withdrawal experiment. Being ignored is much less fun than being told you are wrong. It worked for a while at TT and, from personal experience, I know it works with children and dogs. Why not use Side-Wiki instead?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A good idea, and I like to read the posts on SideWiki, but my google email is through my school, which has blocked my access to making a profile so I can't post. I'll just have to live vicariously through the posts of others!
Posted by: lkeithlu on April 18 2011,18:18

Since I can't post to sidewiki (work-related email doesn't allow me to access) I'll post this here from a new thread at UD:

1
KL
04/18/2011
5:06 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This is a test to see if I have been silently banned. My comment for this thread is as follows: How does this article support your premise that science should include the supernatural?

When you have the time, my original question regarding the hominid fossil record has not been answered.

< linky >
Posted by: paragwinn on April 18 2011,23:29

< Crossposted to UD: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Big apologies for really OT comment:

Has KL or IDC been banned? I havent seen any responses from them in an unusually long time (Internet-wise).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, you could see all the way to Waterloo from the top of vjtorley's post.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 21 2011,07:00

< BarryA > is sad:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly, Ilion is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< BarryA > is very sad:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sadly (because he often had a lot of intelligent things to say) Ilion is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looking high and low, we DO find one intelligent comment to attribute to Iliot:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Arrington is pissed at me (for pointing out the fallacious nature of his pseudo-apology to a cartain DarwinDefender); his comment about the thin ice is a not-too-veiled threat (*) in retaliation to ban me from UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just one. And that's "notpology," you iliot.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 06 2011,12:30

Joe Bozo expelled.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....with-us >

Thanks to the hard work of Vince Torley, super sleuth. :p
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 06 2011,13:50

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 06 2011,12:30)
Joe Bozo expelled.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....with-us >

Thanks to the hard work of Vince Torley, super sleuth. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* Nullius in verba: = We don’t listen to just any old tattle, whether it be Mayor Bloomberg’s civic money-wasting  Ida fossil or accusations of Holocaust denial. We follow up where we can and reserve judgement where we can’t. Here, we could follow up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Irony if ever there was, but...well...I suppose it's some kind of start.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 06 2011,14:07

It's some kind of record, isn't it to be expelled from UD for excessive TARD?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 06 2011,15:06

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 06 2011,12:30)
Joe Bozo expelled.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....with-us >

Thanks to the hard work of Vince Torley, super sleuth. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But surely if Holocaust-denial were so obviously wrong, they'd be only too happy to debate it--with a bunch of tendentious morons who will never ever back off from their prejudices.

After all, we should be wanting to do nothing but churn through a bunch of hackneyed garbage that's been repeatedly exposed for 150 years.  Let alone teach the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory--which include not documenting everything that critics demand.  No one has documented everything the Holocaust deniers demand, either.

They don't think they should have to bother with prejudiced ignorant morons?  And we should?  OK, for LOLs in their case...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 06 2011,15:22

Looking at the talkrational thread, Joe started his intellectual odyssey by disliking Israel. (Something that seems to cross all political lines, unless you are a Southern Baptist.)

From this premise he derived the theorem that the holocaust was invented to justify Israeli policy. It follows that he holocaust didn't happen. QED.

There are some family resemblances in this kind of reasoning.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 06 2011,16:26

Joe is iranian. He seems to follow the old ayatollah.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 06 2011,17:32

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 06 2011,10:30)
Thanks to the hard work of Vince Torley, super sleuth. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm thinking the super-sleuthing consisted of clicking on the tab with the Uncommonly Dense thread in it.  I also find this bit amusing:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But we weren’t kidding when we said that Holocaust denial is unpopular here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, of course it's not.  You can't blame Darwin for it if it never happened.

ETA: Oh, nevermind.  I see from the comments over there that he just clicked on a link Elizabeth Liddle provided for him.
That's some mighty fine sleuthin' there, Vince.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 03 2011,20:20

Denyse < squeaks >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Bot, you can please yourself re British libel law, but you are no longer with us. As a general rule, anyone who threatens to sue is off the board.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A "general rule" that has never been articulated and never applied. Something like "ID Science."
Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 03 2011,20:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2011,13:20)
Denyse < squeaks >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Bot, you can please yourself re British libel law, but you are no longer with us. As a general rule, anyone who threatens to sue is off the board.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A "general rule" that has never been articulated and never applied. Something like "ID Science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And just a few minutes later:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NewsNovember 3, 2011 at 7:33 pm

“Perhaps we all should just spam the comments with Youtube links and Christian music? That’s about the only thing left here.”

Fossfur is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 15 2011,20:59

GinoB is out. What's that like? Our reporter caught up with him at the Barking Spider:

"That post seems to have finally sent KF over the edge because I now find myself silently banned.   My last six posts over the previous two days, all polite responses with links to technical information, were immediately set to 'awaiting moderation' and all were summarily deleted in a few hours.  Of course all the while KF and crew were taking pot shots at me when I wasn't able to respond.

"The non-stop dishonesty and cowardice of the UD moderators, especially you Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat, is truly stomaching-turning.  

Gino B."

Film at eleven. Film also coating Gordon's teeth.
Posted by: George on Nov. 16 2011,03:35

(Misplaced post deleted)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 10 2011,08:13

< KairosFlatus: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ED: Jello has been instructed to remove himself from any and all threads I post at UD, on previous abusive behaviour. I have therefore removed his distractive, off-topic and abusive comment. He apparently cannot resist the temptation to be disruptive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At UD, there's not always room for Jello.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 18 2011,20:49

Quote (didymos @ Dec. 18 2011,13:49)
Expect < "Street Theatre" > to be banninated shortly:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The oxymoron that is ID News is merely a synonym for the bitter, and impotent rantings of those scattered die-hards who have yet to understand that the promised scientific, cultural and spiritual revolution has failed.

Uncommon Descent is reminiscent of Hitler’s bunker in the last days of the war – deluded individuals pushing imaginary battalions of IDEA clubs across the map; an ethereal post-apocalyptic radio station, defiantly transmitting songs of resistance and hope to the faithful.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As it is written, so it shall be done:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Editors: Street Theatre is no longer with us. Coming onto this site and making arguments: Always welcome. But if you do nothing but spew invective, you will be shown the door.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Feb. 09 2012,13:49

Cross-posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, champignon has been silently banned.

My last visible < comment >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KF, you are a pious fraud and a liar:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That such feel it necessary to conceal their might and manipulation makes might views shows that they realise — deep down — that they are morally abnormal, or even warped, even monstrous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.

You have no evidence whatsoever that any of us who have been criticizing the Old Testament God for his genocidal tendencies secretly believe that “might and manipulation make right”.

Another false accusation for you to retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ironically, in the comment I was trying to post when I discovered my bannination, I defended the right of KF and JoeG to make stupid and baseless allegations, and my own right to respond to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 09 2012,20:44

DrRec throws himself on his sword. To BarristerA:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, it is the height of arrogance for a lawyer to comment on scientific convention.

It isn’t an appeal to authority.

It is asking “what the hell do you know you arrogant prick?”

There is a distinction you should think on there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BarryA invokes the Loudspeaker in the Ceiling:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD Editors: Dr. Robert Collins of Yale, who goes by DrREC on this site, will no longer be commenting here. Dr. Collins, is that how they taught you to do it at Yale?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(BarryA doesn't want anyone to know he's an arrogant prick.)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 09 2012,21:15

Does that mean he doesn't want people to know he's a lawyer?

Edit:

Friday came early this week.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 09 2012,21:27

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 09 2012,20:44)
DrRec throws himself on his sword. To BarristerA:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, it is the height of arrogance for a lawyer to comment on scientific convention.

It isn’t an appeal to authority.

It is asking “what the hell do you know you arrogant prick?”

There is a distinction you should think on there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BarryA invokes the Loudspeaker in the Ceiling:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD Editors: Dr. Robert Collins of Yale, who goes by DrREC on this site, will no longer be commenting here. Dr. Collins, is that how they taught you to do it at Yale?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(BarryA doesn't want anyone to know he's an arrogant prick.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Gordon freak out about him saying the 'real name'?
Posted by: REC on Feb. 09 2012,21:36

Frilly Gil kicks me while I'm down:

"This poor soul must be mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict."

Which is SO much worse than the phrase I used.
Posted by: Seversky on Feb. 10 2012,06:13

It seems to me the level of unChristian incivility being directed towards Dr Liddle on the rise, particularly since the likes of champignon and DrREC are no there to split the IDiots fire. I wonder how long can it be before Brave Sir Bully Arrington finds finds himself unable to resist the urge to wield the bannination hammer again.
Posted by: BillB on Feb. 10 2012,11:11

Hmm, well after repeated attempts, GCUGreyArea's posts just seem to vanish into the ether. Another silent banning - nay, a full on friday meltdown!

Barry mush have lost a court case.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 10 2012,11:25

Checking in.  Or, rather, checking out :)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 10 2012,12:18

Socks (and reals) should stay silent on Fridays.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 10 2012,12:44

Hey Rocky, watch me pull an < arrogant prick > out of my hat.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullwinkle says he is hopelessly befuddled as to the difference between the obscenity directed at me and the phrase “sad and pathetic.” In light of that I decided he would be happier not commenting on this site. Anyone else want to push me today?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullwinkle asked for a moderation principle vis civility that allows "mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict," certainly as personal as "arrogant prick," to pass without comment. The result?

Drizzle drazzle druzzle drone, time for this one to come home.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 10 2012,12:53

awww i was hoping to see a menage a alces with Bullwinkle, Clive,baby and Harry Barrington
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 10 2012,14:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2012,12:18)
Socks (and reals) should stay silent on Fridays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently.

Well, it was interesting while it lasted anyway.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 10 2012,17:52



Is gone! Silently banniated by Bully Barry Bullington.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 10 2012,20:34

I think Geoxus got the axe too.  He/she had a couple comments directly challenging Harry B.  They're gone now.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 11 2012,00:13

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,09:25)
Checking in.  Or, rather, checking out :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only time I ever attempted to register with UD, Dave Scott sent me a single sentence reply, "You have got to be kidding."

I was actually.

I just sent my first ever comment to the ?new" UD:

Barry, you are a pathetic failure as a man. Plus other associated thoughts stimulated by reading the thread.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 12 2012,15:55



< Banned > for what he didn't say. Now that is downright peculiar.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 12 2012,16:11

ID: when reality doesn't work, make up your own. Next logical step: Joe G pretends to be an 'evolutionist' over there to pitch slow balls.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 12 2012,17:16

Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 12 2012,22:11

Cross-posted from UD4:
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 13 2012,12:51)
Done.  I'm just sacrificing myself as encouragement NOT to go to UD anymore.




P.S.  anyone watching can let me know if I've been banned or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yea, it < came to pass >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ogreMk5 is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: George on Feb. 14 2012,02:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,17:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  I missed the meltdown by being away over the weekend.  But I've been informed that Prof. FX Gumby has also been silently banned.  He wasn't a very active or effective commenter, but couldn't resist going after Barry on his outing of Dr REC.

Do we have a final casualty figure yet?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 14 2012,08:02

Quote (George @ Feb. 14 2012,02:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,17:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  I missed the meltdown by being away over the weekend.  But I've been informed that Prof. FX Gumby has also been silently banned.  He wasn't a very active or effective commenter, but couldn't resist going after Barry on his outing of Dr REC.

Do we have a final casualty figure yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bodies stacked up like cordwood around the UD fort.
Posted by: Freddie on Feb. 14 2012,08:21

Quote (George @ Feb. 14 2012,02:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,17:16)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  I missed the meltdown by being away over the weekend.  But I've been informed that Prof. FX Gumby has also been silently banned.  He wasn't a very active or effective commenter, but couldn't resist going after Barry on his outing of Dr REC.

Do we have a final casualty figure yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry A: 1    Truthyness and Honestyness: 0
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2012,09:36

Considering that DrDr is moving on,career wise, I've wondered if he might return to UD. Perhaps Barry is preparing the way.
Posted by: BillB on Feb. 14 2012,09:53

Quote (George @ Feb. 14 2012,08:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,17:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  I missed the meltdown by being away over the weekend.  But I've been informed that Prof. FX Gumby has also been silently banned.  He wasn't a very active or effective commenter, but couldn't resist going after Barry on his outing of Dr REC.

Do we have a final casualty figure yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess you can add MaxEntropy to the list.  His last comments were awaiting moderation whilst those that got through were quickly sent to UD's gas chamber before being bulldozed in the mass grave of lost comments ...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2012,14:59

Well it was fun while it lasted.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 14 2012,15:02

Quote (Petrushka @ Feb 14 2012, 14:37)
I accept the definitional foundation of logic.

I also accept the findings of physics which make the concept of physical existence rather complicated. That just means that physical is not the same as the ideal, just as a physical circle is not an ideal circle.

I thought this was something generally agreed upon. I thought it was the foundation of Plato’s thought.

But to answer the specific question, in formal logic, the moon cannot both exist and not exist.

The question faced by physics is somewhat different.

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” Petrushka. Goodbye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2012,15:07

My very own thread. My head is suddenly too big for my hat, which doesn't exist.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 14 2012,15:43

Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,16:33)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,15:26)
Bitter Arrington:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-420380 >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 3:22 pm
ben h, “yes” or “no,” can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dum Dum Dum ... another one bites the dust!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD Moderator: That’s not “no” rhampton7. Goodbye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Barry! Yo!
Posted by: Freddie on Feb. 14 2012,16:34

Hereby recording the demise of several more unfortunates, caught in Barry's diabolical (yet puerile) trap"
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 8 >
ben h
February 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Guess what? I answer the same way as Petrushka. How about that Horatio Barry?

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ben h, we hardly knew you but you had the balls to stand up and be counted when it mattered.
Posted by: Freddie on Feb. 14 2012,16:36

Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,16:34)
Hereby recording the demise of several more unfortunates, caught in Barry's diabolical (yet puerile) trap"
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 8 >
ben h
February 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Guess what? I answer the same way as Petrushka. How about that Horatio Barry?

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ben h, we hardly knew you but you had the balls to stand up and be counted when it mattered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit - I guess i'd finally better go about getting me an edit button ... sorry, ben h, for screwing up your obit a bit.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 15 2012,03:46

Chas D appears to be unable to post. Not sure why - last activity preceded Jupitergate, but there had been a response to one of Barry's petulant remarks about scientists - raised the ante(nnae).

Only logged in to make one final post to reply "no" to the moon question but "wouldn't want to hang around anyway debating the likes of < StephenB >"

Denied the opportunity to walk away with nose in air!  :angry:
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 15 2012,08:29

Heinrich's long run seems to have come to an end - banninated after reposting Eigenstate's response to Barry. It took a couple of days to confirm.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 17 2012,13:39

< Cross-posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread >:
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 17 2012,06:26)
"Bydand" was a little acerbic about the current raised level of hypocrisy at The Tardpit, suggesting that if they felt that tedious and stupid materialists ought to be banned, they might, in equity, look to banning those of the Home Team who were at least as tedious and stupid.

"Bydand" thus joins the Glorious Fallen, or Legion of the Silently Banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 18 2012,12:03

Barry:  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really like Dr. Liddle. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize. Dr. Liddle, I hope you continue to post here. As frustrating as you can be, this would be a boring site if we did not have someone from the other side to joust with. And it is fun to joust with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 18 2012,12:43

Liz's bologna is busier now than UD.

Edit: I don't seem to be able to turn off auto-fix on the Kindle. Perhaps I need to type bl^g.


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Feb. 18 2012,16:37

Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 18 2012,12:03)
Barry:  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really like Dr. Liddle. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize. Dr. Liddle, I hope you continue to post here. As frustrating as you can be, this would be a boring site if we did not have someone from the other side to joust with. And it is fun to joust with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has dawned on Bully Bannington that the brighter ID proponents have followed her to her blog, leaving him with the YECs.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Feb. 20 2012,10:12

Zachriel < reports > over at The Skeptical Zone:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jupiter does exist. (We did answer this in the affirmative on Uncommon Descent, but our comment disappeared into the ćther of silent bannination.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: REC on Feb. 20 2012,11:46

I thought junkdnaforlife was an ID supporter (or a really deep sock)--wonder how many friendly fire victims there were?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

junkdnaforlife on February 20, 2012 at 9:22 am said:
I see the UD mele has spilled out of the bar into the alley and has now swelled into a full fledged riot in the viral streets. Apparently my ability to add and subtract integers had in fact not eroded, and I can simply no longer post to UD.

I have been hereby attracted to the mathyness of this post. Now I must look at this paper and see what all the excitement is about.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< From TSZ >
Posted by: paragwinn on Feb. 22 2012,20:34

< Emperor Palpington finally closes the door on Dr. Liddle: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liddle denies the universal applicability of the three laws of thought. And people wonder why I refuse to countenance her self-repudiating incoherence masquerading as rational argument on this site. Why? As has been said, anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction doesn’t need an argument; they need therapy. Someone else said, “Do not answer a fool according to her foolishness lest you be like her.” Liddle is a fool. She will no longer be spewing her folly on this site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Palpington's Proclamation: "Whoever shall speak against the Three Laws of Thought, it shall not be forgiven him/her, either in this age, or in the age to come"
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 23 2012,07:34

Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 22 2012,20:34)
< Emperor Palpington finally closes the door on Dr. Liddle: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liddle denies the universal applicability of the three laws of thought. And people wonder why I refuse to countenance her self-repudiating incoherence masquerading as rational argument on this site. Why? As has been said, anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction doesn’t need an argument; they need therapy. Someone else said, “Do not answer a fool according to her foolishness lest you be like her.” Liddle is a fool. She will no longer be spewing her folly on this site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Palpington's Proclamation: "Whoever shall speak against the Three Laws of Thought, it shall not be forgiven him/her, either in this age, or in the age to come"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is really quite dishonest, as I was banned without making any reference (IIRC) to his Three Laws of Thought.

He's obviously been lurking at my blog, hoping I'd utter an appropriate heresy.

What my banning did follow was a protest from me about his outing of DrREC.

*growl*
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 23 2012,08:38

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 23 2012,07:34)
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 22 2012,20:34)
< Emperor Palpington finally closes the door on Dr. Liddle: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liddle denies the universal applicability of the three laws of thought. And people wonder why I refuse to countenance her self-repudiating incoherence masquerading as rational argument on this site. Why? As has been said, anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction doesn’t need an argument; they need therapy. Someone else said, “Do not answer a fool according to her foolishness lest you be like her.” Liddle is a fool. She will no longer be spewing her folly on this site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Palpington's Proclamation: "Whoever shall speak against the Three Laws of Thought, it shall not be forgiven him/her, either in this age, or in the age to come"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is really quite dishonest, as I was banned without making any reference (IIRC) to his Three Laws of Thought.

He's obviously been lurking at my blog, hoping I'd utter an appropriate heresy.

What my banning did follow was a protest from me about his outing of DrREC.

*growl*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its fair you have right of reply at your blog. I know you'll be journalistic and factual. Ohhhh, I have such a mind-crush in you! *Mwah*
Posted by: Sealawr on Feb. 27 2012,13:14

Barry airington himeself banned at First Things--a conservative Christian Magazine:

< http://www.firstthings.com/blogs....t-60656 >

None of them believe in Karma, but....

Bonus: even devout Christians reject Dembski--the
Posted by: dvunkannon on Feb. 27 2012,17:11

Quote (Sealawr @ Feb. 27 2012,14:14)
Barry airington himeself banned at First Things--a conservative Christian Magazine:

< http://www.firstthings.com/blogs......t-60656 >

None of them believe in Karma, but....

Bonus: even devout Christians reject Dembski--the
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not banned, just severely upbraided.
Posted by: Mindrover on Aug. 10 2012,11:27

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 09 2012,19:41)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 08 2012,09:27)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 08 2012,09:03)
   
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 08 2012,11:29)
Joe's reply to Bartax sums up the culture of discourse at Uncommon Descent:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fartmax- YOU are the one throwing insults around. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bartax asks a good question in that thread:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is UD so desperate for ‘traffic’ that people with severe social difficulties such as Joe are allowed to post without restraint or censure?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I woud love to hear Barry's answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the only open question about Barry's response is: will Bartax's bannination be silent or announced?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Now we know the answer... >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD: Bartax is no longer with us
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: paragwinn on Aug. 26 2012,21:06

< Emperor Palpington decrees: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38
Maus      August 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. He was a gutless coward and will not be missed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 27 2012,02:27

Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 26 2012,21:06)
< Emperor Palpington decrees: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38
Maus      August 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. He was a gutless coward and will not be missed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all know that the hallmark of gutless cowards is standing up to a bully, knowing that you will get beat up.

Bravery is kicking people who have no weapons. Way to be brave, Barry.

But we saw what you did.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 30 2012,02:07

Barry, being the fine upstanding citizen that he is < wrote this >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Gene @ 100.
You can’t give reasons that 9×9=81. You can only say the same thing in different words as KF did above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor A Gene can't even say that - the silent bannhammer has descended.

What midwifetoad said, obviously.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 06 2013,00:01

Bully puts in an < appearance > on a KF thread:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeMorreale1187 is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeMorreale's previous comment was removed by KF a day and a half earlier, and in the one before that he had the temerity to argue against StephenB. Was that justification enough for Barry, or did I miss something?


Posted by: Quack on Feb. 06 2013,03:48

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 06 2013,00:01)
Bully puts in an < appearance > on a KF thread:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeMorreale1187 is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeMorreale's previous comment was removed by KF a day and a half earlier, and in the one before that he had the temerity to argue against StephenB. Was that justification enough for Barry, or did I miss something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... is no longer with us. Why can't they use straight talk as recommended by their Vademecum?

Christian hypocrites, why don't they ever come right out with what it is: "So and so has been banned from this site for the following reason ..."?

But it figures, I recently read about a study showing that Christians lie more often than other people. I think I know why.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 06 2013,12:08

Granville:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who can look at eyes and ears and brains and say “there is simply NO scientific evidence to back [intelligent design]” is so unconnected to reality that it boggles the mind. Has our education system so badly failed us that it produces people this unable to think for themselves? Even Richard Dawkins admits that living things “give the appearance of having been designed.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Granville's grand ol' BS > [ETA]

Yes, because an "appearance of" is definitely evidence for it.  So there is evidence that sticks are bent by being put into the water, with part of them being left in the air.  

Has our educational system failed us so badly?  In his case, either it failed badly, or he did.

Not that I agree with Dawkins that life has the "appearance of design," or at least it only does so with a whole lot of unwarranted assumptions (if not unusual in Western Civilization), but Granville's dreck is blithering idiocy regardless.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2013,14:23

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 06 2013,04:48)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 06 2013,00:01)
Bully puts in an < appearance > on a KF thread:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeMorreale1187 is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeMorreale's previous comment was removed by KF a day and a half earlier, and in the one before that he had the temerity to argue against StephenB. Was that justification enough for Barry, or did I miss something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... is no longer with us. Why can't they use straight talk as recommended by their Vademecum?

Christian hypocrites, why don't they ever come right out with what it is: "So and so has been banned from this site for the following reason ..."?

But it figures, I recently read about a study showing that Christians lie more often than other people. I think I know why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Impersonal passive language to avoid taking responsibility for being censors.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 06 2013,14:48

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 27 2012,02:27)
Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 26 2012,21:06)
< Emperor Palpington decrees: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38
Maus      August 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. He was a gutless coward and will not be missed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all know that the hallmark of gutless cowards is standing up to a bully, knowing that you will get beat up.

Bravery is kicking people who have no weapons. Way to be brave, Barry.

But we saw what you did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But......Jesus!
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 06 2013,15:06

Good grief.

Never mind; the post that caused me to say that ain't there no more. :p

Er, well, it isn't above this note any more...

Or below it, for the moment...
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 06 2013,15:58

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 05 2013,22:01)
Bully puts in an < appearance > on a KF thread:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeMorreale1187 is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeMorreale's previous comment was removed by KF a day and a half earlier, and in the one before that he had the temerity to argue against StephenB. Was that justification enough for Barry, or did I miss something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Called it >.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 17 2013,08:40

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 17 2013,01:18)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 16 2013,21:33)
Shithead Bully Arrington makes a BS claim about Dawkins and Coyne.

Thaumaturge politely asks him or the other IDiots to substantiate it.

Shithead Bully Arrington can't stand to be questioned, readies the banhammer.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry Arrington March 16, 2013 at 10:14 pm

Thaumaturge, if all you are going to do is to continue to deny the undeniable – i.e., that people like Dawkins and Coyne insist that evolution is a fact! fact! fact! and only the details need to be filled in, you should move along. You bore me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >

Calling that POS a pompous ass is an insult to pompous asses everywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He banned me.  Then, when he knew I could no longer reply, he went back and edited the comment you just quoted.  It now includes this at the end:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you might want to read the article I refer to in my last post, where you will find the following reported:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last fall . . . several of the world’s leading philosophers gathered with a group of cutting-edge scientists in the conference room of a charming inn in the Berkshires. . . .
The biologist Richard Dawkins was there, author of The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and other bestselling books of popular science, and so was Daniel Dennett, a philosopher at Tufts and author of Consciousness Explained and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. So were the authors of Why Evolution is True, The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World, Everything Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, and The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions . . .
They were unanimous in their solid certainty that materialism—as we’ll call it here, to limit the number of isms—is the all-purpose explanation for life as we know it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, even Barry's amended comment doesn't support his claim, which was that Dawkins and Coyne
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...believe the fundamental questions in biology have been settled and all that is left is to suss out the details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure he's hoping that no one will point that out, but I'll bet he's ready with the ban hammer in case they do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keiths adds his name to the list of those banned by Mr. Shithead Barry Arrogant.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 17 2013,11:43

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 06 2013,15:58)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 05 2013,22:01)
Bully puts in an < appearance > on a KF thread:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeMorreale1187 is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeMorreale's previous comment was removed by KF a day and a half earlier, and in the one before that he had the temerity to argue against StephenB. Was that justification enough for Barry, or did I miss something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Called it >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeM is almost as weird as JoeG, just minus the potty mouth.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The enemy as I have described above are nor a few criminal Muslims roaming about that are largely supported and manipulated by intelligence agencies of CIA, MI6 and Mossad.
What is happening in the world is in great part due to high level Freemasonry/Illuminati and Zionism which are paving the way for the one eyed (see one dollar bill) anti Christs arrival.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2013,23:16

Looks like Barry is lining up another loyalty test / purge:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....phistry >


Just as well only you and people like you can start threads there, eh Barry?
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 18 2013,09:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2013,23:16)
Looks like Barry is lining up another loyalty test / purge:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....phistry >


Just as well only you and people like you can start threads there, eh Barry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait...he's actually considering banning his own loyal supporters? Does he just want to sit around and blog to himself like Joe does?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 18 2013,12:43

Oh noes ... the end is near, and it's KN's fault:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alternative “logics” are of course elements of a dissolutive thinking, whose target is no more simply intelligence, reason, religion, ethics, morality or whatever but directly the Truth, the Absolute. No more something can be simple, transparent, or obvious. All must be relative, muddy and confused so that the new emperor Error can finally reign undisturbed. This dissolutive thinking in philosophy and science (among many other things) is specific of the post-materialist phase that will finally led humanity to its end. (About materialism, post-materialism and dissolution see René Guénon’s “The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times”.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This < argument of niwrad's > is somehow parallel to the idea that a scientific discovery must the wrong because it can be abused.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 18 2013,12:48

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 18 2013,12:43)
Oh noes ... the end is near, and it's KN's fault:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alternative “logics” are of course elements of a dissolutive thinking, whose target is no more simply intelligence, reason, religion, ethics, morality or whatever but directly the Truth, the Absolute. No more something can be simple, transparent, or obvious. All must be relative, muddy and confused so that the new emperor Error can finally reign undisturbed. This dissolutive thinking in philosophy and science (among many other things) is specific of the post-materialist phase that will finally led humanity to its end. (About materialism, post-materialism and dissolution see René Guénon’s “The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times”.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This < argument of niwrad's > is somehow parallel to the idea that a scientific discovery must the wrong because it can be abused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Imagine, the banhammer is all that stands between us and the abyss!

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 28 2013,14:45

KF < threatens >Kantian Naturalist who has made a completely harmless joke:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is at least the third or fourth Uncommon Descent post that’s been presented as a direct response to something I’ve said. Don’t I at least get a kick-back?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KN: Are you sure you want a kick-back?So far, the “pay” has on the whole been in hate sites, outing tactics, threats against families, slanders and worse. Might cost you being expelled, too. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Febble on Mar. 28 2013,15:45

To be fair, KF was probably thinking of the Expelled, not the banned from UD.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 28 2013,15:53

True.
Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on Mar. 28 2013,18:02

I just assumed that Kairosfocus was making a joke -- the joke being that the "benefits" received from being involved with the ID movement are not really desirable.  A few times KF has alluded to various threats he's received, hackers attacking his website, stuff like that.  He attributes it all to  the Darwinists, of course.  I have no idea what evidence he has for that attribution.  And he also implied that my professional career would be imperiled if my involvement with UD became widely known, since I am in academia.  Little does he know that my academic career is going down the tubes as it is, and my involvement with UD has nothing to do with it -- except perhaps insofar as I spend too much time there and not enough time working on my own stuff.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 28 2013,18:17

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Mar. 28 2013,16:02)
A few times KF has alluded to various threats he's received, hackers attacking his website, stuff like that.  He attributes it all to  the Darwinists, of course.  I have no idea what evidence he has for that attribution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People used his real name, after he linked to another site where he used it.  

And they laughed at him.

That's pretty much it.  As far as I know, he's never presented evidence for anything else.
Posted by: Freddie on June 02 2013,12:08

CharlieD has outstayed his welcome - well, to be honest with his style of post (fun as it was) it was only a matter of time.  And Barry.


Posted by: Ptaylor on June 11 2013,03:16

(Sigh - I think this is where I came in - Dense is trying to discredit the theory of evolution by argument-that-Darwin-was-a-Brit-toff.)

Anyway, although he was sorta asking for it, I think Joeatle's bannination in that thread deserves recording here.
A response to Byers on that thread now appears as:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7
JoealtleJune 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Joealtle believes he can come into someone else’s virtual house and spew obscenities. He was warned to stop. He did not heed the warning and is no longer with us. UD


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< UD link >
I saw the comment, but but don't quite recall the content. However, it was something like this one, also a reply to Byers, still up there at the moment on another thread:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2
JoealtleJune 10, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Except stromatolites show a slow decrease in population size, not a sudden dying off, and in fact, there are still some around today. You should get your facts from reliable sources instead of fables.
Dumbfuck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahahahaha
Posted by: Henry J on June 11 2013,23:15

But what's obscene about stromatolites?  :O
Posted by: Texas Teach on June 12 2013,16:16

Quote (Henry J @ June 11 2013,23:15)
But what's obscene about stromatolites?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you seen what they do at night?
Posted by: Henry J on June 12 2013,22:04

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 12 2013,15:16)
Quote (Henry J @ June 11 2013,23:15)
But what's obscene about stromatolites?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you seen what they do at night?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but how bad can it be? They don't even have gender! (Do they?)
Posted by: fnxtr on June 13 2013,01:28

Quote (Henry J @ June 12 2013,20:04)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 12 2013,15:16)
 
Quote (Henry J @ June 11 2013,23:15)
But what's obscene about stromatolites?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you seen what they do at night?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but how bad can it be? They don't even have gender! (Do they?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're downright pervy. The original title of that Neil Diamond song was Turn on your Stromato-Lights. Coincidence? I think not!
Posted by: timothya on June 13 2013,07:59

At UD:

"Evolutionary Prediction About Humans"

Googly eyes are a prediction of evolutionary biology? Where did this come from? It is certainly true that if you combine access to Photoshop with a febrile imagination you will get . . . something strange.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 14 2013,09:25

Quote (timothya @ June 13 2013,08:59)
At UD:

"Evolutionary Prediction About Humans"

Googly eyes are a prediction of evolutionary biology? Where did this come from? It is certainly true that if you combine access to Photoshop with a febrile imagination you will get . . . something strange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The rimshot is that the projected changes are described in the article as resulting from genetic engineering for space faring.

So the Googly eyes are designed!
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 14 2013,09:41

And presumably patentable.
Posted by: keiths on July 18 2013,11:05

Cross-posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread:
Quote (keiths @ July 18 2013,09:03)
No one will be surprised to hear that I've been silently banned from UD.

This time Barry is wisely keeping his mouth shut instead of offering a bogus justification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on July 18 2013,12:40

Quote (keiths @ July 18 2013,11:05)
Cross-posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread:
Quote (keiths @ July 18 2013,09:03)
No one will be surprised to hear that I've been silently banned from UD.

This time Barry is wisely keeping his mouth shut instead of offering a bogus justification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You shoot an intellectually unarmed man and expect to be acquitted?
Posted by: keiths on July 18 2013,12:47

Good point.  Guilty as charged.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 18 2013,13:16

Quote (keiths @ July 18 2013,12:47)
Good point.  Guilty as charged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry obviously doesn't believe in stand your ground, or even in self defense.
Posted by: REC on Aug. 20 2013,20:49

I'll dump these here so that we can see how many get modified by Sal. Mung is a POS, no doubt, but I think it is his non-YEC views that earned him disappearances.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1
Mung August 20, 2013 at 6:15 pm
For the record: Salvador deletes another post of mine.

So, Salvador, what was so offensive about the content?

I once played an entire game of chess blindfolded and even won the game. Does that mean I’m good at chess?

I guess it challenged Sal’s belief that he is good at math because he got kicked out of a casino, and thus warranted deletion.

Good on ya Sal!

2
MungAugust 20, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Salvador seems to have embarked on a mission to excise all my posts in any thread he has authored.

That’s a FINE Christian thing to do, Sal.

Can I ask why such behavior is tolerated here at UD?

3
MungAugust 20, 2013 at 6:31 pm
The funny part is, in an amateurish attempt to cover his tracks, Sal even deleted his post inviting me to not participate in his threads. lol!

4
MungAugust 20, 2013 at 6:38 pm
For the record:

I responded to Elizabeth in the thread Am I the only ID proponent

The response had nothing to do with Salvador or his silly beliefs. He deleted it anyways, apparently for the sole reason that it was in a thread he had control over.

Good on ya Sal! That was the CHRISTIAN thing to do. You fraud. God is my witness.

5
MungAugust 20, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Barry, why do you allows this?

Denyse, you sit idly by?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Others also disappearing today:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

scordovaAugust 20, 2013 at 10:24 am
Gregory,

Your worthless illogical incoherent bloviations aren’t worth my time. Your last comment moved to the spam queue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 20 2013,22:02

Sal and KF in Thunderdome.

Just idly thinking.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 20 2013,22:42

Over at UD Mung is still bitching about Slimy Sal.

UD isn't big enough to hold both of their egos, and I'm afraid Mung is going to be the odd asshat out.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 21 2013,08:03

Gregory supports Mung:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s ‘Salvadorian Freedom’ in the light of Expelled Syndrome.

He even deletes posts of people when they are agreeing with him (!), as he just did to me in his ‘no positive argument for Design’ thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And Alan Fox:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s nothing. He even deleted a comment of mine at TSZ in one of his guest posts! J’étais carrément scandalisé!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 21 2013,09:50

Is this true:

"And Alan Fox: Quote  
That’s nothing. He even deleted a comment of mine at TSZ in one of his guest posts! J’étais carrément scandalisé!"

If so I hope his posting privallages were pulled.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 21 2013,11:00

Read it while it's still there:
UD:
< http://tinyurl.com/m8twzde....m8twzde >

Same discussion over at TSZ:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?....?p=3024 >

ETA: Short link to TSZ
< http://tinyurl.com/ke59eax....ke59eax >


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 15 2013,09:38

Another one bites the dust.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
News  September 15, 2013 at 3:41 am

AVS is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which one of you bastids was AVS?
Posted by: REC on Sep. 22 2013,21:55

Whatever-the-fuck combination of Sal's and Mung's egos + mental "prowess" produced this, it seems worth preserving, for the record:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MungSeptember 20, 2013 at 6:37 pm
I’D LIKE TO THANK SAL FOR HIS EDITORIAL REVISIONS OF MY POSTS. I’VE BEEN BANNED FROM ALL DISCUSSIONS HE AUTHORS. BUT LIKE A KNUCKLEHEAD I KEEP SHOWING UP UNIVITED IN HIS DISCUSSIONS EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THAT DOING SO WILL INVITE EDITORIAL REVISION OF MY POSTS. I GUESS I KEEP SHOWING UP UNINVITED DESPITE BEING BANNED BECAUSE I REALLY DESPISE SAL AND AM SO JEALOUS OF HIM AND JUST WANT TO MAKE TROUBLE FOR HIM BY STALKING HIS THREADS.

FOR EXAMPLE, I ACCUSED SAL OF NOT KNOWING HOW TO PROGRAM IN LANGAUGES LIKE C, C++, JAVA ETC. I JUST MADE THAT UP. I DON’T HAVE A COMPUTER SCIENCE DEGREE LIKE SAL DOES. SAL HAS DEVELOPED SOFTWARE IN THE AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE INDUSTRY, BUT I DIDN’T BOTHER TO FIND THAT OUT BEFORE I JUST MAKE CRAP UP TO SMEAR HIM.

I ACCUSED HIM OF HAVING SILLY NOTIONS OF THERMODYNAMICS EVEN THOUGH I DON’T HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE IN APPLIED PHYSICS LIKE SAL AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS LIKE SAL. I JUST DISLIKE SAL AND I’LL MAKE STUFF UP ABOUT HIM AND TROLL HIS DISCUSSIONS. AND THEN LIKE A TROLL I’LL ASK HIM IF HE’S GOOD IN MATH DESPITE THE FACT SAL HAS A DEGREE IN MATH AS WELL AS COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEEERING AND APPLIED PHYSICS DEGREES. HE COULDN’T STUDY PHYSICS IF HE SUCKED AT MATH LIKE I DO. BUT I JUST MAKE CRAP UP BECAUSE I’M TROLLING HIS DISCUSSIONS.

MY NAME IS MUNG AND THAT RHYMES WITH DUNG.

6
MungSeptember 22, 2013 at 3:11 pm
chllng Sl t SMR FF!

Wll, tht crtnl xplns lt! t snds lk Sl s tkng thngs rthr prsnll ftr ll. Ths n’s wrth svng fr pstrt.

Sl, f ‘m s ntnt n smrng r nm sr d ls jb f t. shld wn th cntst sl.

MY NAME IS MUNG AND I POST DUNG

7
MungSeptember 22, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Thanks SAL! You’re a real PAL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is the ALL CAPS Sal's edit?
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 22 2013,23:15

When TARD Collides.
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 04 2013,12:32

Barry has no answer but the hammer:

< Elizabeth Liddle doubles down yet again. She is no longer with us. >
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 07 2013,17:19

Two more sane people exit UD, one of his own volition, the other - not:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox October 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Just to add to the retreat, I hear that commenter, Jerad, has been banned at Uncommon Descent. I think I too will retreat and leave you guys (not many women -why is that?) to your own devices. Call me when that ID theory coalesces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
(Cross posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread)

Edited: Maybe this was posted too soon. Follow up comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
61
Barry Arrington October 7, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Fox: “I hear that commenter, Jerad, has been banned at Uncommon Descent”

Not true.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 08 2013,16:02

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 07 2013,17:19)
Two more sane people exit UD, one of his own volition, the other - not:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox October 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Just to add to the retreat, I hear that commenter, Jerad, has been banned at Uncommon Descent. I think I too will retreat and leave you guys (not many women -why is that?) to your own devices. Call me when that ID theory coalesces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
(Cross posted from the Uncommonly Dense thread)

Edited: Maybe this was posted too soon. Follow up comment:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
61
Barry Arrington October 7, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Fox: “I hear that commenter, Jerad, has been banned at Uncommon Descent”

Not true.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry Assholeton has a new way to weasel.  BA defends his actions and claims Jerad wasn't banned, he now just has all of his posts kept in the permanent moderation queue until Barry decides Jerad's posts meets Barry's standards for ID acceptable content.

Sources tell us that will be the second Tuesday of next week.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 09 2013,07:28

Double secret probation. Barry will negotiate just as soon as jerad capitulates.
Posted by: REC on Nov. 26 2013,12:41

After giving Barry a verbal spanking, Pro Hac Vice gets the boot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

36 Barry Arrington November 26, 2013 at 12:15 pm

Pro Hac Vice, I notice that you dodged the questions in my 24. Into the moderation que with you demonstrate you are willing to argue in good faith by answering them.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite sad. PHV deserves a round of applause.

I count some 8 or so independent questions in Barry's 24. Some are questions: Agree with me? Now or later?, others just declarations with a "?":

Others are just too puerile to deserve a response:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You say it is possible for every proposition to be wrong. Is it possible for that proposition to be wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



PHV even announces in his post that he can't address them all immediately:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BA, I have to prioritize work today, so I may not be able to respond in my customary great length. Let me focus on what I think is the most important failure in your “argument” – it’s circular.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< UD Link >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The set ‘self-evident moral truths’ is not empty if there is at least one self-evident moral truth. There is at least one-self-evident moral truth. Therefore, the set ‘self-evident moral truths’ is not empty.

This is circular because, as you’ve admitted there’s no component argument for the existence of X1, you just assume it a priori. (This is despite your strange attempt to use absurdity as such an argument, which you seem to have abandoned.)

In other words, you’re assuming a priori that a self-evident moral truth exists, and using it as proof that self-evident moral truths exist. That’s circular. ....

Nothing in your post above is really an argument, though, is it? It all just rests on your personal assertions. This is the Grand Sez Who 2013 Edition. Self-evident moral truths exist. Sez who? Barry Arrington. This is one of them. Sez who? Barry Arrington. It’s impossible for Barry Arrington to be wrong about that. Sez who? Barry Arrington. It’s impossible for Barry Arrington to be wrong about being wrong. Sez who? Barry Arrington. It’s impossible for anyone to disagree with Barry Arrington. Sez who? Barry Arrington. Nothing ever resolves out to an argument that exists outside your own head, making it all ultimately a subjective assertion of truth.

Your assertions are not arguments. They’re impervious to reasoning or logic, being founded ultimately only on your say-so. I think that makes them impossible to refute or to prove. But since they’re founded ultimately on your perceptions and feelings, we’re still in a subjective and error-prone world. (Identifying truths about which it’s impossible to be wrong (assuming arguendo that you’ve done so) does not establish that your assertions fit within that set. And the one such truth you identified is actually self-evident in that denying it is self-refuting. “Barry Arrington can’t be wrong about this” is not self-evident in that way, as there’s nothing self-refuting about the statement, “Barry Arrington has mistakenly assumed his personal beliefs are self-evident objective moral truths.”)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Italics are BA's


Posted by: REC on Mar. 05 2014,17:06

I guess this counts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

26 kairosfocus March 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Mr Matzke,

I scrolled up to post 15 ff.

I see you already tried a turnabout and pretzel twist game, compounding what you have done in recent weeks.

Strike three.

PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, AND PLEASE DO NOT POST IN ANY THREADS I OWN UNTIL YOU CAN FIND THE BASIC MANNERS TO APOLOGISE FOR AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE YOUR CONDUCT TOWARDS BASIC CIVILITY.

Any further posts from you in this and future threads I own will be deleted, until you show that you have a civil tongue in your head.

Good day

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No idea what provoked this response. Looks like Nick entered the thread to respond to an accusation of racism (for which he got an apology) and an accusation of outing a private conversation.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 05 2014,19:59

Quote (REC @ Mar. 06 2014,10:06)
I guess this counts:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

26 kairosfocus March 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Mr Matzke,

I scrolled up to post 15 ff.

I see you already tried a turnabout and pretzel twist game, compounding what you have done in recent weeks.

Strike three.

PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, AND PLEASE DO NOT POST IN ANY THREADS I OWN UNTIL YOU CAN FIND THE BASIC MANNERS TO APOLOGISE FOR AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE YOUR CONDUCT TOWARDS BASIC CIVILITY.

Any further posts from you in this and future threads I own will be deleted, until you show that you have a civil tongue in your head.

Good day

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No idea what provoked this response. Looks like Nick entered the thread to respond to an accusation of racism (for which he got an apology) and an accusation of outing a private conversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
28
NickMatzke_UDMarch 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

KF — let’s see, early in this thread, some before I started posting, I had several charges of dishonesty, inappropriate disclosure of confidential correspondence, and basically, racism thrown at me. Your response to all of that? Nada. When I get annoyed and dare to defend myself, you drop the ban-hammer on me.

It’s not censorship, it’s just dumb. Who do you think you are fooling? Do you want to have a credible site, or one where the craziest basic mistakes about even simple matters far away from the science issues go uncorrected?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is now this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

28
NickMatzke_UDMarch 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

Mr Matzke thinks that doubling down on accusations can help him get away with false accusations, similar to his literature bluffs that have already served the cause of injustice. When he learns civility he may return to threads I own. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edit: For the record, KF has now added the following to comment 28:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for his attempts to belittle and derail discussion of a report that something out there has caused VJT’s thread to go viral, which turned out to be a republication of a story; let the resort to pettiness, churlishness, out of order behaviour, rudeness and the like speak for itself in the context of over a year in the which any objector to design theory anywhere in the world has had a free kick at goal, and there has been a refusal to take it. Likewise, it should be quite clear that I have no power to censor NM, i.e. suppress his freedom to express himself as he likes, but I am taking the step of saying his rudeness and pattern of false accusations of dishonesty have worn out his welcome in threads I own. I trust that this modest disciplinary step may help wake him up after his tantrum passes, and he will find it in himself to make amends. Enough is enough. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 05 2014,20:33

So I was just browsing through the dictionary and got to "pompous windbag".

Guess who's picture I saw there?
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 05 2014,22:25

Kairosfocus - the cultless cult leader.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2014,23:00

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,19:59)
Quote (REC @ Mar. 06 2014,10:06)
I guess this counts:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

26 kairosfocus March 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Mr Matzke,

I scrolled up to post 15 ff.

I see you already tried a turnabout and pretzel twist game, compounding what you have done in recent weeks.

Strike three.

PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, AND PLEASE DO NOT POST IN ANY THREADS I OWN UNTIL YOU CAN FIND THE BASIC MANNERS TO APOLOGISE FOR AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE YOUR CONDUCT TOWARDS BASIC CIVILITY.

Any further posts from you in this and future threads I own will be deleted, until you show that you have a civil tongue in your head.

Good day

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No idea what provoked this response. Looks like Nick entered the thread to respond to an accusation of racism (for which he got an apology) and an accusation of outing a private conversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
28
NickMatzke_UDMarch 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

KF — let’s see, early in this thread, some before I started posting, I had several charges of dishonesty, inappropriate disclosure of confidential correspondence, and basically, racism thrown at me. Your response to all of that? Nada. When I get annoyed and dare to defend myself, you drop the ban-hammer on me.

It’s not censorship, it’s just dumb. Who do you think you are fooling? Do you want to have a credible site, or one where the craziest basic mistakes about even simple matters far away from the science issues go uncorrected?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is now this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

28
NickMatzke_UDMarch 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

Mr Matzke thinks that doubling down on accusations can help him get away with false accusations, similar to his literature bluffs that have already served the cause of injustice. When he learns civility he may return to threads I own. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edit: For the record, KF has now added the following to comment 28:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for his attempts to belittle and derail discussion of a report that something out there has caused VJT’s thread to go viral, which turned out to be a republication of a story; let the resort to pettiness, churlishness, out of order behaviour, rudeness and the like speak for itself in the context of over a year in the which any objector to design theory anywhere in the world has had a free kick at goal, and there has been a refusal to take it. Likewise, it should be quite clear that I have no power to censor NM, i.e. suppress his freedom to express himself as he likes, but I am taking the step of saying his rudeness and pattern of false accusations of dishonesty have worn out his welcome in threads I own. I trust that this modest disciplinary step may help wake him up after his tantrum passes, and he will find it in himself to make amends. Enough is enough. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely shameful. To think that he cries "censorship" and questions the ethics of others and then behaves this way.

ID - you are scientifically vacuous and your leadership is ethically bankrupt.
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 06 2014,04:43

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 06 2014,01:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for his attempts to belittle and derail discussion of a report that something out there has caused VJT’s thread to go viral, which turned out to be a republication of a story; let the resort to pettiness, churlishness, out of order behaviour, rudeness and the like speak for itself in the context of over a year in the which any objector to design theory anywhere in the world has had a free kick at goal, and there has been a refusal to take it. Likewise, it should be quite clear that I have no power to censor NM, i.e. suppress his freedom to express himself as he likes, but I am taking the step of saying his rudeness and pattern of false accusations of dishonesty have worn out his welcome in threads I own. I trust that this modest disciplinary step may help wake him up after his tantrum passes, and he will find it in himself to make amends. Enough is enough. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F/N Such red herring tactics designed to poison the well and cloud the atmosphere are straight out of the Alinskyite playbook. Cf Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals

F/N Plato warned about this behaviour in book XI of The Laws...

F/N I have personal experience on the front line of fighting Marxists and their turnabout tactics. You will not win, sir!

BYDAND!
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 06 2014,07:34

Gordon really is the worst.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 06 2014,11:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Likewise, it should be quite clear that I have no power to censor NM, i.e. suppress his freedom to express himself as he likes, but I am taking the step of replacing his posts with my own insane mutterings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,11:58

Behold, the birth of the "I'm not a hypocrite if I only do it on Wednesdays" defense:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-492041 >

LULZ like the "notorious BIG", I'm "the notorious RTH".

Anyhoo:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RTH needs to correct himself, as I have not cried “censorship” on this matter though I have pointed out ideological domination and indoctrination in the name of education. As in kindly cf Lewontin’s advocacy and too many concrete cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(yes, Lewontin, Everyone drink.)

What I actually said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolutely shameful. To think that he cries "censorship" and questions the ethics of others and then behaves this way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis added.

So you've never clutched your pearls regarding censorship, KF?

So this wasn't you:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, having called for censorship of core Christian morality and foundational documents, Mr Morgan then went on to say...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or this



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice, how the issue  in [a referenced cite]  is that I spoke to how ordinary Germans were taken to the camp after the defeat of the Nazis, to see what they had been enabling. And that has patently been my concern, in the face of a pattern of censorship and expulsion sustained by widespread blame/scapegoat the victim tactics and associated enabling passivity. As is documented above [in the linked].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or this



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In turn, that is because the sterling and massively sacrificial contribution of Christians to the rise of modern liberty and democracy is commonly censored out in how the history of the past 500 years is presented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or even nominating people for "censor of the year" here:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-and-so >

So pull your head out of Plato's...cave for a minute and decide. Are you for censorship, or not? If you are, don't gripe when others do it. If you're not, don't do it or condone it. Or you can keep being a hypocrite, but don't pretend otherwise.

ETA: You even wanted others to censor content on their sites on your behalf!

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?p=1768 >

Absolutely shameful.


Posted by: Freddie on Mar. 06 2014,12:41

Slow day out there on the volcano ...


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 06 2014,12:42

Absolutely shameful, indeed. But who would have expected anything else from Gordon E. Mullings.
Posted by: REC on Mar. 06 2014,12:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LULZ like the "notorious BIG", I'm "the notorious RTH"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Quick! Someone photoshop the Notorious RTH a new avatar!


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,12:58

But it's not censorship when he does it, it's



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a more accurate description is stopping a distruptive heckler, spin doctor and false accuser from going insistently beyond the bounds of civility in order to routinely threadjack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, if someone did it to him, it would be censorship.

KF's not a censor, he's just applying a set of arbitrary and capricious rules when someone asks him a question he'd rather others didn't see.

And about your 6000 word Challenge? Step over to TSZ and we'll chat. No one wants to participate in your heavily censored environment.

Also, still no CSI calculations? Waterloo on hold?
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 06 2014,13:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2014,17:58)
Behold, the birth of the "I'm not a hypocrite if I only do it on Wednesdays" defense:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-492041 >

LULZ like the "notorious BIG", I'm "the notorious RTH".

Anyhoo:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RTH needs to correct himself, as I have not cried “censorship” on this matter though I have pointed out ideological domination and indoctrination in the name of education. As in kindly cf Lewontin’s advocacy and too many concrete cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(yes, Lewontin, Everyone drink.)

What I actually said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolutely shameful. To think that he cries "censorship" and questions the ethics of others and then behaves this way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis added.

So you've never clutched your pearls regarding censorship, KF?

So this wasn't you:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, having called for censorship of core Christian morality and foundational documents, Mr Morgan then went on to say...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or this

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice, how the issue  in [a referenced cite]  is that I spoke to how ordinary Germans were taken to the camp after the defeat of the Nazis, to see what they had been enabling. And that has patently been my concern, in the face of a pattern of censorship and expulsion sustained by widespread blame/scapegoat the victim tactics and associated enabling passivity. As is documented above [in the linked].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or this

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In turn, that is because the sterling and massively sacrificial contribution of Christians to the rise of modern liberty and democracy is commonly censored out in how the history of the past 500 years is presented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or even nominating people for "censor of the year" here:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-and-so >

So pull your head out of Plato's...cave for a minute and decide. Are you for censorship, or not? If you are, don't gripe when others do it. If you're not, don't do it or condone it. Or you can keep being a hypocrite, but don't pretend otherwise.

ETA: You even wanted others to censor content on their sites on your behalf!

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?....?p=1768 >

Absolutely shameful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter kf: I'M NOT SHOUTING. YOU ARE A SHOUTER. STOP SHOUTING. BYDAND
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 06 2014,16:21

He's still on with the 6,000 word essay? No replies, a year hath passed, speaks volumes. Largely about the contempt in which him and his venue are held. He brings a disreputable blog into further disrepute. Takes some doing.

Hmmm, wonder what you'd get from that viper if you attempted to discuss said essay following publication?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 06 2014,16:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for NM’s failure to acknowledge that a double headed coin landing H is not attributable to chance, that is a case of reduction to absurdity on his part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Huh? This is listed as part of the justification for obliterating NM's words. What if it had a picture of a duck on it? How do its markings influence a spun disk's final position?
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 06 2014,17:58

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 06 2014,14:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for NM’s failure to acknowledge that a double headed coin landing H is not attributable to chance, that is a case of reduction to absurdity on his part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Huh? This is listed as part of the justification for obliterating NM's words. What if it had a picture of a duck on it? How do its markings influence a spun disk's final position?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus could have turned the head into a picture of a duck if he wanted, but chose not to.  Therefore not chance.
Posted by: REC on Mar. 12 2014,18:38

More KF loudspeaker to document. Also that kinda unhealthy obsession with Dr. Matzke has led him to ban Roy for either agreeing with Nick? or denying he's Nick's sockpuppet?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
92
RoyMarch 11, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Emphasis mine:
In this particular case, in a previous thread, he and confederates/ enablers falsely accused me of Gish Gallop (triggered by a point-wise summary at 23) [cf 31 which specifically addresses rude disruptiveness] and quote mining [which I corrected at 51 on here by making an extensive citation proving the contrary; observe round-up at 75 which I was forced to make on Christmas Day], which when he “vanished” was then taken up by a sock puppet or confederate or enabler.

I am not a sock puppet of Nick Matzke. Your suggestion that Nick uses sock puppet accounts, implying deceitfulness, is not only false but also completely unjustified. You owe Nick Matzke a retraction and an apology.

–> Au Contraire, your behaviour shows that you fit the categories [recall, three-fold . . . denoting a range of possibilities], in fact for instance, you may be a persona of one of the denizens of a cluster of notorious sites that are known to explicitly collaborate on tactics and moves, or to informally support and enable. As for NM, he has been long since demonstrated dishonest starting with the lies circulated by NCSE while he was their publicist. Lies that have materially contributed to unjust court decision and unjustified career busting. In the more immediate context of the past few months, as shown above with links, his false accusation of “Gish Gallop” which led to my finally dealing with him as a heckler, is a further case in point.

–> I also have not failed to notice, that you have tried to deny and dismiss the slanders that have been documented on NM’s part, whilst trying to twist about and further falsely accuse me. Typical.

–> Let me also make something clear about the range of meanings of the term sock puppet, per Wikipedia:

>>A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities attempt to block sockpuppets.>>

–> The point should be clear enough: you popped up as “second” after NM vanished in a thread, now, more than one. You are using an effectively anonymous identity and are posing as an unaffiliated third party. But, your function in a context of trying to dismiss demonstrated problems with NM and to resort to twistabout personal attack, smearing false accusation tactics comes straight out of the Alinskyite astro-turf [as in not grassroots] tactics book.

–> And as for you “Roy,” you are now on notice that you too have some apologising and making of amends to do.

Nor am I a confederate of Nick Matzke. We have never met, have never spoken, and (unless he’s replied to one of my few posts at The Panda’s Thumb) never communicated on-line. Nor can I be an enabler, since Nick posted long before I did. Those are also false accusations.


–> your denial in the teeth of facts shown to the contrary simply, sadly, further demonstrates your status. At minimum, you are an enabler, and your behaviour in co-ordination or support may indicate, confederate. I cannot even eliminate sock puppet given the patterns and behaviour in view. Sorry, but your say-so, given your patterns of behaviour, is not good enough.

There is no right to be rude or to make false accusations, …


Then desist.

–> A compounding, turnabout false accusation.

–> Strike 2. If you do not make amends, you have the choice (a) remove yourself from threads I own, or (b) be treated as a disruptive, false-accusation making heckler.

–> And, I take the step of marking up your comment to show the serious nature of what you are doing. KF

Roy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< UD Link >

Roy's original in italics.
Posted by: Lethean on Mar. 13 2014,03:25

It won't do anything about his posturing but I'm thinking about launching a kickstarter to purchase a ticket to the island so I can steal KF's thesaurus.

I admit I compose my own train wrecks but that man is incredibly painful to read.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 13 2014,06:47

Quote (REC @ Mar. 13 2014,00:38)
More KF loudspeaker to document [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His '96' a new low. I do wonder what the UD moderates (if such there be) make of KF's behaviour.
Posted by: REC on Aug. 22 2014,16:11

Brave Sir Barry:

RDFish August 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm

[snip] UD Editors: In this comment RDFish called Barry Arrington a liar. He is now in moderation.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-511539 >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 22 2014,20:31

RDFish has been a kangaroo in boxing gloves over at the UnderDome.

This was inevitable.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 22 2014,22:28

Underdome: Two men enter, one of them is seen leaving.

Hey, where'd the other guy go?
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 12 2014,12:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Graham2 >: I absolutely, totally and inconvertibally agree with all 4, 100%, yessiree.

Because I don’t want to be banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 13 2014,14:14

Sadly, Rich's comments don't even make it to the moderation queue any more.

He started positively, trying to coax out some actual probabilities in this thread:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism....vidence >

Barry gets the hump almost immediately, a get out the loudspeaker in the ceiling©.

Some of the better exchanges:

Rich: “ In my column for the Times, I wrote about the record-holding tiny genome, belonging to a microbe called Tremblaya. Its genome is a mere 139,000 base pairs. “

< http://phenomena.nationalgeogr.....shrinking/....rin....rinking >

....

So 139,000 base pairs = (at 2 bits per base pair) = 278000 bits = about 34k!

Barry: Rich @ 100. I can’t tell if you are being serious. Are you really suggesting that cellular life is so simple that the information necessary for a fully functioning cell is only 34k? Do you have any evidence for that other than your obviously flawed back of the envelope calculation there?

Rich: Barry says above “I can’t tell if you are being serious. Are you really suggesting that cellular life is so simple that the information necessary for a fully functioning cell is only 34k? Do you have any evidence for that other than your obviously flawed back of the envelope calculation there?”

Please help me understand what is wrong with my math.

Thanks in advance,
Rich

*crickets*

And then we have this post that didn't make it through (twice).

RichYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Editor (Barry?)
First, please be honest enough to use your name.
Second, I clearly say:
“I was googling to try and find the least information required for self replication”.
I don’t mention the cell in that post at all. In fact, I previously say:
“Also doing some research I don’t think we should be using “the simplistic cell” as the start of life. Some Evolutionists subscribe to the RNA world and that would I think require much less information. If we’re arguing that a cell was created de novo, we won’t be taken seriously.”
So I think that’s quite honest and clear. Do you have a problem with that?


So there we have it. Rich tried really hard to make them do some math. And he was positive and upbeat just like the awesome EL.

Barry, honey, we don't mind that you're shit at math and science, but you make UD BORING. The web has enough blowhard apologetics sites. Your preening, posturing, lawyering and selectively approving comments isn't really helping ID as science. Have you given up on ID as science? I suppose that's why UD and the DI is run by lawyers, not scientists...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 13 2014,21:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2014,14:14)
Sadly, Rich's comments don't even make it to the moderation queue any more.

He started positively, trying to coax out some actual probabilities in this thread:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/ba77s-observation-many-influential-people-in-academia-simply-dont-want-design-to-be-true-n

o-matter-what-evidence/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism....vidence[/URL]

Barry gets the hump almost immediately, a get out the loudspeaker in the ceiling©.

Some of the better exchanges:

Rich: “ In my column for the Times, I wrote about the record-holding tiny genome, belonging to a microbe called Tremblaya. Its genome is a mere 139,000 base pairs. “

< http://phenomena.nationalgeogr.....shrinking/....rin....rinking >

....

So 139,000 base pairs = (at 2 bits per base pair) = 278000 bits = about 34k!

Barry: Rich @ 100. I can’t tell if you are being serious. Are you really suggesting that cellular life is so simple that the information necessary for a fully functioning cell is only 34k? Do you have any evidence for that other than your obviously flawed back of the envelope calculation there?

Rich: Barry says above “I can’t tell if you are being serious. Are you really suggesting that cellular life is so simple that the information necessary for a fully functioning cell is only 34k? Do you have any evidence for that other than your obviously flawed back of the envelope calculation there?”

Please help me understand what is wrong with my math.

Thanks in advance,
Rich

*crickets*

And then we have this post that didn't make it through (twice).

RichYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Editor (Barry?)
First, please be honest enough to use your name.
Second, I clearly say:
“I was googling to try and find the least information required for self replication”.
I don’t mention the cell in that post at all. In fact, I previously say:
“Also doing some research I don’t think we should be using “the simplistic cell” as the start of life. Some Evolutionists subscribe to the RNA world and that would I think require much less information. If we’re arguing that a cell was created de novo, we won’t be taken seriously.”
So I think that’s quite honest and clear. Do you have a problem with that?


So there we have it. Rich tried really hard to make them do some math. And he was positive and upbeat just like the awesome EL.

Barry, honey, we don't mind that you're shit at math and science, but you make UD BORING. The web has enough blowhard apologetics sites. Your preening, posturing, lawyering and selectively approving comments isn't really helping ID as science. Have you given up on ID as science? I suppose that's why UD and the DI is run by lawyers, not scientists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody needs to point this out to Joey.  Even his own team disagrees with him.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 20 2014,00:59

On a thread where Barry Arrington has an imaginary conversation with an imaginary theistic evolutionist we now have:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13
Acartia_bogartSeptember 19, 2014 at 9:40 pm

A_b is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
Anyone catch the original comment?
Posted by: Learned Hand on Sep. 22 2014,23:56

From the new "How to Get Banned" post: "No one gets banned from UD unless they repeatedly violate the moderation policy."

From the Moderation tab in the masthead, in which the new owner collects Dembski's commenting rules, "further stipulating that nothing has changed": "Finally, there is one cardinal rule at this blog, namely, I make up the rules as I go along."

The only firm rule at UD seems to be, Thou Shalt Not Make Barry Arrington Feel Inadequate.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 23 2014,12:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thou Shalt Not Make Barry Arrington Feel Inadequate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that true?
Posted by: Learned Hand on Sep. 23 2014,17:02

Not literally, since there are no firm rules, but it's the only explanation I see for booting Dr. Liddle.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 25 2014,20:12

Barry scratches an itch:  
< 12 >
Graham2
September 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us.

You know. The line.

BTW, there's a < powder > for that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 25 2014,23:24

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 25 2014,20:12)
Barry scratches an itch:  
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/jeff-shallit-surely-the-right-analogy-is-santa-claus-to-jesus-christ-both-are-mythical-fig

ures-spectacular-fail-at-history-101/#comment-516158]12[/URL]
Graham2
September 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us.

You know. The line.

BTW, there's a < powder > for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meanwhile, in the twatcave:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry:

WS logic: Barry bans a troll for an extremely offensive post that transcends all bounds of decency...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ALL BOUNDS OF DECENCY!!!1111
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 26 2014,00:47

Barry's post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....So let’s count up the indicia of uncharitable:
Refuse to accept and analyze his arguments on their own terms and at face value:  Check.
Assume he is lying:  Check
Assume he is trying to mislead from his true objective:  Check
Assume he has ulterior motives:  Check

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Barry in post 27:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...As expected, you are lying, obfuscating, deflecting and evading
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Barry, you're an uncharitable dipshit.
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 26 2014,08:50

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 25 2014,18:12)
Barry scratches an itch:  
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/jeff-shallit-surely-the-right-analogy-is-santa-claus-to-jesus-christ-both-are-mythical-fig

ures-spectacular-fail-at-history-101/#comment-516158]12[/URL]
Graham2
September 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us.

You know. The line.

BTW, there's a < powder > for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


a.s.s.f.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 26 2014,09:03

Haha holy fuck....blasphemy laws at UD!
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 26 2014,10:04

Jesus fucking Christ what's the world coming to?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 20 2014,18:56

Yawn - another bannination (I think). Barry to Tintinnid after the latter suggested an apology was appropriate after the former misattributed another's comment to him/her, labelling them as being 'incapable of rational argument':
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tin @ 16. Now you are boring me. At least before you were committing somewhat interesting errors to expose. So long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Oct. 20 2014,20:23

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 20 2014,18:56)
Yawn - another bannination (I think). Barry to Tintinnid after the latter suggested an apology was appropriate after the former misattributed another's comment to him/her, labelling them as being 'incapable of rational argument':
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tin @ 16. Now you are boring me. At least before you were committing somewhat interesting errors to expose. So long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly.  But will he delete all incriminating posts, as he has done in the past? Me think so.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 20 2014,21:27

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 21 2014,13:23)

Possibly.  But will he delete all incriminating posts, as he has done in the past? Me think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry's response:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“So long” means “goodbye.” It does not mean “you’re banned.” Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So that's a no.
However, StephenB decided to speak for Barry shortly beforehand:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, it means that he regrets the error and has nothing more to say. Your perception of the justice or injustice of previous bannings is not really relevant since you don’t know the complete history of interactions that prompted them. What may seem frivolous on your end may have been the last straw on the other end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis. Hey Stephen, over here! I know where you can get a pretty good history of bannings at UD, along with quite a bit of context behind them. (Mind you, the sheer number kinda speaks for itself.)
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Oct. 20 2014,22:39

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 20 2014,21:27)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 21 2014,13:23)

Possibly.  But will he delete all incriminating posts, as he has done in the past? Me think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry's response:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“So long” means “goodbye.” It does not mean “you’re banned.” Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So that's a no.
However, StephenB decided to speak for Barry shortly beforehand:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, it means that he regrets the error and has nothing more to say. Your perception of the justice or injustice of previous bannings is not really relevant since you don’t know the complete history of interactions that prompted them. What may seem frivolous on your end may have been the last straw on the other end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis. Hey Stephen, over here! I know where you can get a pretty good history of bannings at UD, along with quite a bit of context behind them. (Mind you, the sheer number kinda speaks for itself.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still not an apology to be seen.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 21 2014,09:24

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 20 2014,22:39)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 20 2014,21:27)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 21 2014,13:23)

Possibly.  But will he delete all incriminating posts, as he has done in the past? Me think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry's response:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“So long” means “goodbye.” It does not mean “you’re banned.” Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So that's a no.
However, StephenB decided to speak for Barry shortly beforehand:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, it means that he regrets the error and has nothing more to say. Your perception of the justice or injustice of previous bannings is not really relevant since you don’t know the complete history of interactions that prompted them. What may seem frivolous on your end may have been the last straw on the other end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis. Hey Stephen, over here! I know where you can get a pretty good history of bannings at UD, along with quite a bit of context behind them. (Mind you, the sheer number kinda speaks for itself.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still not an apology to be seen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilariously hypocritical, given this:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-up-guy >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
aniel King: Stand Up Guy
September 29, 2014 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
Comments off
In a prior post I highlighted an altercation with Daniel King. DK has been posting here since 2006, and his comments, while generally critical of ID, have been for the most part measured and civil. I am happy to report that Mr. King has accepted responsibility for his actions and posted an apology. We all make mistakes. It takes courage to own those mistakes and apologize. Thank you sir for your demonstration of that courage. The matter is closed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 21 2014,10:52

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 20 2014,22:27)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 21 2014,13:23)

Possibly.  But will he delete all incriminating posts, as he has done in the past? Me think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry's response:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“So long” means “goodbye.” It does not mean “you’re banned.” Sheesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So that's a no.
However, StephenB decided to speak for Barry shortly beforehand:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, it means that he regrets the error and has nothing more to say. Your perception of the justice or injustice of previous bannings is not really relevant since you don’t know the complete history of interactions that prompted them. What may seem frivolous on your end may have been the last straw on the other end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis. Hey Stephen, over here! I know where you can get a pretty good history of bannings at UD, along with quite a bit of context behind them. (Mind you, the sheer number kinda speaks for itself.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some bored shut-in enterprising AtBC friend should count up how many overt banninations have been recorded at UD. Then we could compare that number to here, but I'd have to consult Wes, because I can't recall the last one.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 21 2014,12:56

BANNED LIST REMOVED: ALL POSTS INSTANTLY GOING THROUGH:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....amnesty >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 21 2014,13:36

Springer, Davison, and AfDave are the ones I recall having become persona non grata for cause through interactions here or at affiliated sites.

Markuze I'd lump in with a larger contingent of spammers, folks who never (or vanishingly infrequently) responded topically here.

There are a number of folks who have attempted "death by cop" here but still have posting privileges in their own threads.

It is possible I've forgotten a case. Feel free to jog my memory.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 21 2014,16:16

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2014,13:36)
Springer, Davison, and AfDave are the ones I recall having become persona non grata for cause through interactions here or at affiliated sites.

Markuze I'd lump in with a larger contingent of spammers, folks who never (or vanishingly infrequently) responded topically here.

There are a number of folks who have attempted "death by cop" here but still have posting privileges in their own threads.

It is possible I've forgotten a case. Feel free to jog my memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ghost of Paley got himself/themselves banned after a lot of hard work trying didn't he/they?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 21 2014,17:07

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 21 2014,16:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2014,13:36)
Springer, Davison, and AfDave are the ones I recall having become persona non grata for cause through interactions here or at affiliated sites.

Markuze I'd lump in with a larger contingent of spammers, folks who never (or vanishingly infrequently) responded topically here.

There are a number of folks who have attempted "death by cop" here but still have posting privileges in their own threads.

It is possible I've forgotten a case. Feel free to jog my memory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ghost of Paley got himself/themselves banned after a lot of hard work trying didn't he/they?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Add him to the first list. I am not down with sock puppets here.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 21 2014,20:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 21 2014,12:56)
BANNED LIST REMOVED: ALL POSTS INSTANTLY GOING THROUGH:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....amnesty >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just tried posting, and am in moderation. It's possible there are good reasons for this (I also changed my nickname, for example), so let's see what happens.

ETA: It's OK, I was released from moderation, so probably some other issue, not Barry.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 31 2014,00:18

Looks like my account has been lost / removed /deleted:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.


ERROR: Invalid username or e-mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried username and email and even tried an old recovery link..
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 31 2014,00:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,08:18)
Looks like my account has been lost / removed /deleted:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.


ERROR: Invalid username or e-mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried username and email and even tried an old recovery link..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's inflammatory!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 31 2014,17:28

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 31 2014,00:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,08:18)
Looks like my account has been lost / removed /deleted:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.


ERROR: Invalid username or e-mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried username and email and even tried an old recovery link..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's inflammatory!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Account deleted (again) - reregistered.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 31 2014,17:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,15:28)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 31 2014,00:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,08:18)
Looks like my account has been lost / removed /deleted:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.


ERROR: Invalid username or e-mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried username and email and even tried an old recovery link..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's inflammatory!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Account deleted (again) - reregistered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which thread did you last comment in?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 31 2014,19:26

From here on, this thread should be considered

Uncommonly Dense: The ReBanninning!
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 01 2014,04:41

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2014,19:26)
From here on, this thread should be considered

Uncommonly Dense: The ReBanninning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about: "Bannination II: The Carnage Continues"
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2014,18:49

The carnage ran over somebody else's dogma?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 01 2014,21:15

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 31 2014,17:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,15:28)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 31 2014,00:53)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,08:18)
Looks like my account has been lost / removed /deleted:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.


ERROR: Invalid username or e-mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried username and email and even tried an old recovery link..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's inflammatory!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Account deleted (again) - reregistered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which thread did you last comment in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just had to re-register for the 4th time.

I've got it down to under 30 seconds.
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 02 2014,23:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2014,19:15)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 31 2014,17:47)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,15:28)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 31 2014,00:53)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2014,08:18)
Looks like my account has been lost / removed /deleted:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.


ERROR: Invalid username or e-mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I tried username and email and even tried an old recovery link..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's inflammatory!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Account deleted (again) - reregistered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which thread did you last comment in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just had to re-register for the 4th time.

I've got it down to under 30 seconds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rich, if you had put all that effort into delineating and demonstrating conclusively the exact moolecoolur pathaway from amoeba to man via unguarded nature-copping-a-feely evolution instead of picking UD's lock, then the overly-popular ID paradime would have collapsed like a bad souffle, Joe would offer you second authorship when he publishes his tick-watermelon studies (and free lifetime toaster repair), Barry would need surgery to remove bomb shrapnel, and Denyse would stop putting "?" in her post titles. However, it is doubtful that kairosfocus or BA77 would be left speechless.

But no.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,02:58

This morning brings shocking and unexpected news. I can no longer post at Uncommon Descent! No indication that I've moved to a "moderated" status. I can log in but if I post a comment, the page refreshes to the top of the thread and there's no sign of my comment. If I try again, I get "duplicate comment detected" so I guess I'm in secret moderation. I guess it may be to do with Discussing Bill Dembski's book advance. It's your fault, Story!

ETA < link >
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,05:11

Oops

Seems that may be premature. I can still post from a phone on public wifi.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 04 2014,06:15

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 04 2014,13:11)
Oops

Seems that may be premature. I can still post from a phone on public wifi.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A RIP in the space time continuum they'll accuse you of hacking before it's all over.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,06:26

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2014,01:15)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 04 2014,13:11)
Oops

Seems that may be premature. I can still post from a phone on public wifi.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A RIP in the space time continuum they'll accuse you of hacking before it's all over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure my internet skilz will be roundly mocked. I'll see if my home IP address is still glitched later.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,06:48

Update:

Same problem now from this location. I suspect IP addresses are being blacklisted
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,07:24

Update:

Can't log in now as my password has mysteriously changed and I can't get a new one as my email doesn't exist in their database. I'm almost convinced someone would rather I stopped posting there
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2014,08:27

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 04 2014,07:24)
Update:

Can't log in now as my password has mysteriously changed and I can't get a new one as my email doesn't exist in their database. I'm almost convinced someone would rather I stopped posting there
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what happened to me 3 times (account deletion?) - reregister using the same credentials and mention it when you post again.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,08:33

Bump
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 04 2014,08:35

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 04 2014,06:48)
Update:

Same problem now from this location. I suspect IP addresses are being blacklisted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry returns from bible camp one day, and you get banned the next. Coincidence? I think not.

I have noticed the same thing. I can post from various Wi-Fi locations but I can't post from home, or any Wi-Fi location for more than a couple days. I guess in this way, Barry can swear on a stack of bibles that he has not banned anybody.

That sneaky little Barry.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,08:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2014,03:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 04 2014,07:24)
Update:

Can't log in now as my password has mysteriously changed and I can't get a new one as my email doesn't exist in their database. I'm almost convinced someone would rather I stopped posting there
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what happened to me 3 times (account deletion?) - reregister using the same credentials and mention it when you post again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt this is other than deliberate. I tried re-registering and I get "email already in use" yet that email and my user name "does not exist in our database". I call that de facto banning.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 04 2014,08:46

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 04 2014,03:35)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 04 2014,06:48)
Update:

Same problem now from this location. I suspect IP addresses are being blacklisted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry returns from bible camp one day, and you get banned the next. Coincidence? I think not.

I have noticed the same thing. I can post from various Wi-Fi locations but I can't post from home, or any Wi-Fi location for more than a couple days. I guess in this way, Barry can swear on a stack of bibles that he has not banned anybody.

That sneaky little Barry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is pretty underhand. Barry must be desperate. What can he do? Let us barbarians in and the poor dears faint. Keep us out and the blog fades into complete insignificance. I'm actually a bit flattered. My effectiveness as a critic of ID must have improved. :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2014,10:49

I got deleted again. 30 seconds later I'm back, and highlighting what they did.
Posted by: GinoB on Nov. 04 2014,19:20

Enkidu (me)  has now been silently banned.  I'm still logged in but my posts just vanish as soon as I submit them, not even an "awaiting moderation" notice.  Tried from two different locations and a proxy, must be based on user ID.

It was an interesting experiment while it lasted.  Barry opened the window for some fresh air and the regular UD tards all pissed themselves.  Back to the old ways we go.  Very telling that Arringturd was such a coward he wouldn't even make our banning public.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 04 2014,19:33

i don't imagine i'll last long.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

23
notstevestoryNovember 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Behe might not realize IC has been utterly shredded, but that’s on him, not his critics.

24
notstevestoryNovember 4, 2014 at 7:32 pm

BTW, in case people here don’t realize it, UD is back to banning people, they’re just doing so without announcing it.

For a while it was almost as free and open as an actual science blog. Oh well.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Driver on Nov. 04 2014,19:49

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2014,00:33)
i don't imagine i'll last long.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

23
notstevestoryNovember 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Behe might not realize IC has been utterly shredded, but that’s on him, not his critics.

24
notstevestoryNovember 4, 2014 at 7:32 pm

BTW, in case people here don’t realize it, UD is back to banning people, they’re just doing so without announcing it.

For a while it was almost as free and open as an actual science blog. Oh well.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Longer than me.


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2014,22:51

Strike down the banned!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2014,23:30

Yeah, my comments aren't appearing - I've been silently moderated.

I'm not surprised. Its a bloodbath over there. KeithS has peed in all their cornflakes and the butthurt is high.

I'm sure Barry thought they'd fare quite well. Hypothesis rejected.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 05 2014,00:21

This innocent bystander can only observe that Dembski not only has abandoned completely the blog he created, presumably proudly and with great expectations for "ID - the future", but except for some feeble attempt at reviving his brainchild CSI doesn't give a damn about the entire enterprise.

That's the way it looks from the boondocks (ID-wise) here.


Edit: Maybe the wrong thread, but...


Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 05 2014,01:06

I don't know whether this counts as a bannination of a commenter - Astroman - or just his comment, but when I saw this I thought I would copy it for, well, you know. Plus it's a laugh.

The scene: In the The Black Knight Taunt thread Astroman has just pushed bornagain77 into throwing up five long consecutive posts of his usual copypasta including quotes, youtube links, music-and-verse.
Astroman:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
225
AstromanNovember 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm

k said: “E: The test for ID is simple. Show on observation blind chance and/or mechanical necessity de novo creating functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. That is, falsify the design inference induction on FSCO/I as sign. As has been highlighted any number of times, including over the past few days. If you don’t know that, you do not know what you are talking about. If you do, but wanted to play rhetorical games, it is worse. KF”

As Learned Hand pointed out, it is NOT the responsibility of ID critics to test ID, and your drumbeat repetition of the same old rhetorical games, strawmen, red herrings, double standards, enabling, FIASCO garbage, pompous dictates, sanctimonious sermons, and slanderous, cowardly lies and false accusations laced with the oily, incendiary, poisonous stench of your narcissistic insanity are mighty Christian of you. FOR RECORD.

F/N: Pardon but you’re a loon.

P.S. Kindly do better.

P.P.S. Grace open eyes.

P.P.P.S. Bydand!

P.P.P.PS. END

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now - gone!

Edited: It's true enough about BA's comments above, but of course Astroman was responding to KF. I get the two mixed up all the time, probably because I seldom read either of them.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2014,01:27

My prediction is a much more active and vocal KF now that these bannings have mysteriously and anonymously happened.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 05 2014,16:11

Up until now I have only been blocked based on IP address. Now my user name is also blocked, and any comments using a new user name are in moderation. All silently. Barry is such a pathetic snivelling coward.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2014,16:29

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 05 2014,16:11)
Up until now I have only been blocked based on IP address. Now my user name is also blocked, and any comments using a new user name are in moderation. All silently. Barry is such a pathetic snivelling coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't know it was Barry. I'm hoping not. Whoever it is should be brave enough to say who, when and why. Perhaps they like the proles to have the pretense of openness?

"Look, they can't answer our questions"
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 05 2014,16:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2014,16:29)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 05 2014,16:11)
Up until now I have only been blocked based on IP address. Now my user name is also blocked, and any comments using a new user name are in moderation. All silently. Barry is such a pathetic snivelling coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't know it was Barry. I'm hoping not. Whoever it is should be brave enough to say who, when and why. Perhaps they like the proles to have the pretense of openness?

"Look, they can't answer our questions"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My money is on Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings from Montserrat. I have also noticed that many of my previous comments have been deleted.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2014,16:34

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 05 2014,16:32)
... I have also noticed that many of my previous comments have been deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just terrible.

< Guardians of Uncommon Descent >
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 05 2014,19:27

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2014,16:34)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 05 2014,16:32)
... I have also noticed that many of my previous comments have been deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just terrible.

< Guardians of Uncommon Descent >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn. He even looks like Gordon. Not that anyone would know what KairosFocus looks like because he has never made it easy to identify who he is. Except for the link from his user name.
Posted by: GinoB on Nov. 06 2014,09:30

Barry Arringturd pontificates about how UD is so fair:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It never ceases to amaze me when I watch a bunch of dissenters comment about how dissenters are not allowed to comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Except for folks like Richardthughes, Thorton, Alan Fox, Enkidu, Acartia Bogart, and Astroman.  All knowledgeable ID critics who are not allowed to comment.

Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?   :p
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 06 2014,17:04

Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings of Montserrat is now using racial discrimination as an excuse for Joe's offensive comments. Please try to make sense of his latest spew:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adapa, Please, read carefully. I have never endorsed Joe in misbehaviour but have indicated he has had serious provocation which we should understand. Have you ever had someone accuse you to your boss to try to rob you unjustly of employment, or play at locking you out, or threaten you or family? Have you ever faced for instance racial discrimination and accusation — this is getting too close to that for any reasonable person to be comfortable; that’s like how Southern US soldiers in England during the ’40′s thought they could push West Indian soldiers and airmen around as they were used to doing with intimidated Southern Blacks back home — they learned a few very hard lessons. I don’t agree with what bullied or attacked West Indian soldiers did in retaliation, but I can understand that the black soldiers were provoked. It therefore seems to me that something is very wrong here with your response, wrong in a way that looks all too familiar with those who refused to see racial provocation. Please, think again. And yes, this situation is taking on the tone of too many ill-bred objectors to design thought imagining they have a right to be bullies and worse. Do you really want to enable those who are going down that kind of road? When I see signs of willingness to acknowledge grievous and even habitual wrongdoing by far too many objectors to design thought, or anything that reminds them of God, and to correct that wrong-doing, I will take concerns more seriously. Meanwhile, it should be quite clear to the reasonable onlooker that so soon as the troll vaults were opened there was a wave of abusive commentary at UD that has begun to echo a penumbra of sites whose level of behaviour has gone well beyond the pale of decency. That misbehaviour has to be addressed, and it is obvious from the thread owner’s comments that it is addressing abuse on both sides of the issue. Let the onlooker also notice that all of this is on side tracks from the pivotal issues. That is no coincidence. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 06 2014,18:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Closing time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK. What does it mean when UD stop allowing comments on a thread that was discussing comment blocking? We can't defend it, so let's stop talking about it?  
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 06 2014,20:17

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 06 2014,15:04)
Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings of Montserrat is now using racial discrimination as an excuse for Joe's offensive comments. Please try to make sense of his latest spew:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adapa, Please, read carefully. I have never endorsed Joe in misbehaviour but have indicated he has had serious provocation which we should understand. Have you ever had someone accuse you to your boss to try to rob you unjustly of employment, or play at locking you out, or threaten you or family? Have you ever faced for instance racial discrimination and accusation — this is getting too close to that for any reasonable person to be comfortable; that’s like how Southern US soldiers in England during the ’40′s thought they could push West Indian soldiers and airmen around as they were used to doing with intimidated Southern Blacks back home — they learned a few very hard lessons. I don’t agree with what bullied or attacked West Indian soldiers did in retaliation, but I can understand that the black soldiers were provoked. It therefore seems to me that something is very wrong here with your response, wrong in a way that looks all too familiar with those who refused to see racial provocation. Please, think again. And yes, this situation is taking on the tone of too many ill-bred objectors to design thought imagining they have a right to be bullies and worse. Do you really want to enable those who are going down that kind of road? When I see signs of willingness to acknowledge grievous and even habitual wrongdoing by far too many objectors to design thought, or anything that reminds them of God, and to correct that wrong-doing, I will take concerns more seriously. Meanwhile, it should be quite clear to the reasonable onlooker that so soon as the troll vaults were opened there was a wave of abusive commentary at UD that has begun to echo a penumbra of sites whose level of behaviour has gone well beyond the pale of decency. That misbehaviour has to be addressed, and it is obvious from the thread owner’s comments that it is addressing abuse on both sides of the issue. Let the onlooker also notice that all of this is on side tracks from the pivotal issues. That is no coincidence. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >
Posted by: Learned Hand on Nov. 06 2014,22:42

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 06 2014,18:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Closing time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK. What does it mean when UD stop allowing comments on a thread that was discussing comment blocking? We can't defend it, so let's stop talking about it?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems like the right move to me. The conversation wasn't going anywhere, except off the rails. And I like that they (probably inadvertently) closed it just in time to catch Joe getting caught red-handed in a blatant lie.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 07 2014,17:30

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 06 2014,16:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Closing time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK. What does it mean when UD stop allowing comments on a thread that was discussing comment blocking? We can't defend it, so let's stop talking about it?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't find that thread at UD. Has it been deleted?
Posted by: Learned Hand on Nov. 07 2014,23:29

No, it's < still there >. Sorry if the URL gets borked, you can find it by searching "vote" on the last couple days' home pages there.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 08 2014,03:42

Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 07 2014,21:29)
No, it's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/post-election-special-the-evolutionary-psychologist-knows-why-you-vote-and-shop-and-tip-at

-restaurants/]still there[/URL]. Sorry if the URL gets borked, you can find it by searching "vote" on the last couple days' home pages there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 08 2014,08:49

Posted without comment



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Barry Arrington November 8, 2014 at 8:41 am

Joe @ 13.

“Grow up.”

Having been warned repeatedly to stick to the issues and to lay off the personal attacks, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Joe is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: NoName on Nov. 08 2014,09:21

When a bully bullies a bully, the whole world smiles ;-)
Posted by: socle on Nov. 08 2014,09:24

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 08 2014,08:49)
Posted without comment

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Barry Arrington November 8, 2014 at 8:41 am

Joe @ 13.

“Grow up.”

Having been warned repeatedly to stick to the issues and to lay off the personal attacks, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Joe is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Truly an historic day.  

My question is, will he attempt a sock?


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 08 2014,09:29

Quote (socle @ Nov. 08 2014,09:24)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 08 2014,08:49)
Posted without comment

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Barry Arrington November 8, 2014 at 8:41 am

Joe @ 13.

“Grow up.”

Having been warned repeatedly to stick to the issues and to lay off the personal attacks, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Joe is no longer with us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Truly an historic day.  

My question is, will he attempt a sock?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if but when.

An e-beer to the first one to identify the new JoeTard sock!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 08 2014,09:30

page bug bump
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 08 2014,12:10

I wish that I felt otherwise but I'm sure that joey's ban won't last long. He will either use a sock, as others have suggested, or he will re-register and arrington won't do anything about it, or he will email arrington (and likely already did) and spew some dishonest, pathetic crap about how he (joey) is the innocent victim of the big bad 'evo' meanies, and he will assure arrington that he will be a good boy. joey will likely also email other IDiots (especially gordo) and try to get them to lobby arrington for 'forgiveness' and joey's reinstatement.

If or when joey's ban is lifted, he will quickly show that he is still the belligerent, incorrigible, cowardly, moronic, lying IDiot-creationist that he has always been. In the meantime joey will likely spew multiple, blame shifting tirades on his blog about how unfair the ban is.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2014,12:23

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2014,12:10)
I wish that I felt otherwise but I'm sure that joey's ban won't last long. He will either use a sock, as others have suggested, or he will re-register and arrington won't do anything about it, or he will email arrington (and likely already did) and spew some dishonest, pathetic crap about how he (joey) is the innocent victim of the big bad 'evo' meanies, and he will assure arrington that he will be a good boy. joey will likely also email other IDiots (especially gordo) and try to get them to lobby arrington for 'forgiveness' and joey's reinstatement.

If or when joey's ban is lifted, he will quickly show that he is still the belligerent, incorrigible, cowardly, moronic, lying IDiot-creationist that he has always been. In the meantime joey will likely spew multiple, blame shifting tirades on his blog about how unfair the ban is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think he will complain about the ban.

This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does.

He won't complain about them any more than he argues with Gordo about whether the Mullings Interpretation of the CSI is correct.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Nov. 08 2014,12:31

Now, here's a new sensation - a shred of respect for something Barry says:  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But sometimes it seems like “vituperative” is all you [Joe] do.

Our opponents have noticed this too, and they are calling us hypocrites for not dealing with it. That criticism is not entirely unfair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 08 2014,13:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2014,10:23)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2014,12:10)
I wish that I felt otherwise but I'm sure that joey's ban won't last long. He will either use a sock, as others have suggested, or he will re-register and arrington won't do anything about it, or he will email arrington (and likely already did) and spew some dishonest, pathetic crap about how he (joey) is the innocent victim of the big bad 'evo' meanies, and he will assure arrington that he will be a good boy. joey will likely also email other IDiots (especially gordo) and try to get them to lobby arrington for 'forgiveness' and joey's reinstatement.

If or when joey's ban is lifted, he will quickly show that he is still the belligerent, incorrigible, cowardly, moronic, lying IDiot-creationist that he has always been. In the meantime joey will likely spew multiple, blame shifting tirades on his blog about how unfair the ban is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think he will complain about the ban.

This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does.

He won't complain about them any more than he argues with Gordo about whether the Mullings Interpretation of the CSI is correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His complaining has already started. I'm a bit surprised at how joey is going about it by ridiculing arrington because, as you said, "This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does." However, when I consider how stupid, belligerent, and incorrigible joey is it isn't very surprising that he shits in his own bed.  

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot.com >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 08 2014,13:26

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 08 2014,12:31)
Now, here's a new sensation - a shred of respect for something Barry says:  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But sometimes it seems like “vituperative” is all you [Joe] do.

Our opponents have noticed this too, and they are calling us hypocrites for not dealing with it. That criticism is not entirely unfair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe's behavior has been so over the top that not even Barry could ignore it anymore.

I hope the huge irony of Joe complaining that he was unfairly banned by UD isn't lost on anyone.   :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 08 2014,13:44

He's emailing KF crying right now. He's already sold him a crock about how Darwinists ate his babies, and KF being quick to find offense with evo-mat naughties bought it hook, line and stinker.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 09 2014,12:29

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2014,11:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2014,10:23)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2014,12:10)
I wish that I felt otherwise but I'm sure that joey's ban won't last long. He will either use a sock, as others have suggested, or he will re-register and arrington won't do anything about it, or he will email arrington (and likely already did) and spew some dishonest, pathetic crap about how he (joey) is the innocent victim of the big bad 'evo' meanies, and he will assure arrington that he will be a good boy. joey will likely also email other IDiots (especially gordo) and try to get them to lobby arrington for 'forgiveness' and joey's reinstatement.

If or when joey's ban is lifted, he will quickly show that he is still the belligerent, incorrigible, cowardly, moronic, lying IDiot-creationist that he has always been. In the meantime joey will likely spew multiple, blame shifting tirades on his blog about how unfair the ban is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think he will complain about the ban.

This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does.

He won't complain about them any more than he argues with Gordo about whether the Mullings Interpretation of the CSI is correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His complaining has already started. I'm a bit surprised at how joey is going about it by ridiculing arrington because, as you said, "This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does." However, when I consider how stupid, belligerent, and incorrigible joey is it isn't very surprising that he shits in his own bed.  

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The funny part is on his entire visible recent postings page there are about 9 comments in total for all his venting. Clearly a game-changer, our Joey.
Posted by: REC on Nov. 09 2014,13:04

I hope Barry takes him back soon.

Joe has (he says):
1) Run for government
2) Harassed school-boards/demanded classroom access
3) "a fight against our corrupt educational system to wage"

And now he has 6? 8? 12? more hours a day to do it.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 09 2014,13:56

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 09 2014,10:29)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2014,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2014,10:23)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2014,12:10)
I wish that I felt otherwise but I'm sure that joey's ban won't last long. He will either use a sock, as others have suggested, or he will re-register and arrington won't do anything about it, or he will email arrington (and likely already did) and spew some dishonest, pathetic crap about how he (joey) is the innocent victim of the big bad 'evo' meanies, and he will assure arrington that he will be a good boy. joey will likely also email other IDiots (especially gordo) and try to get them to lobby arrington for 'forgiveness' and joey's reinstatement.

If or when joey's ban is lifted, he will quickly show that he is still the belligerent, incorrigible, cowardly, moronic, lying IDiot-creationist that he has always been. In the meantime joey will likely spew multiple, blame shifting tirades on his blog about how unfair the ban is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think he will complain about the ban.

This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does.

He won't complain about them any more than he argues with Gordo about whether the Mullings Interpretation of the CSI is correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His complaining has already started. I'm a bit surprised at how joey is going about it by ridiculing arrington because, as you said, "This is his support group. These are the only people on the planet that even come close to accepting him and believing as he does." However, when I consider how stupid, belligerent, and incorrigible joey is it isn't very surprising that he shits in his own bed.  

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The funny part is on his entire visible recent postings page there are about 9 comments in total for all his venting. Clearly a game-changer, our Joey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And 4 of those 9 comments are by joey. None are by any other IDiots. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that joey's fellow IDiots aren't supporting him on his blog. :)
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 07 2014,11:42

Pachyaena has been banned at UD. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

I'll paste my response to William J Murray's number 55 comment < in this thread > here since I'm now unable to post it at UD:

William J Murray, first of all, your use of the labels "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" shows that you're clueless. I'm going to replace your labels with 'non-IDer scientists' or 'non-IDers'.

Now, you have, and are asserting, a MASSIVE misconception of how non-IDer scientists think and how they approach the study of nature. No non-IDer scientist goes around thinking that nature is just a "haphazard" pile of rocks and that nothing has a purpose (or a 'function'). There are LOTS of things in nature that have a purpose (a 'function') but that does NOT mean that those things were/are designed and created by some (or a particular) supernatural-designer-creator-god.

Purpose (or 'function') can be defined in more than one way, as you should know. You IDers see purpose/function only as something that comes from some (or a particular) supernatural-designer-creator-god. In another thread you said you agree that weather is unguided/undesigned, so you must believe that weather has no purpose/function. I'm sure that a lot of (if not all) non-IDers and non-IDer scientists (including staunch atheists) would disagree with you and would say that weather does have a purpose/function but that it's not or not necessarily a purpose/function that was/is designed-created-guided by some (or a particular) supernatural-designer-creator-god. You're trying to make it look as though non-IDer scientists and other non-IDers are just a bunch of zombie robots that see everything in the universe (including life, evolution, etc.) as nothing but "haphazard" slop but that's NOT true.

And none of the things you listed are a "change", and especially a productive/positive/profound "change", from how science is already done.

You said: "ID theory only claims that ID is a necessary part of the causal chain wrt designed artifacts."

That is a lie.

You also said: "I’m being as honest as I can be."

Then you've got a lot to learn about actually being honest. You're a theist. You're a creationist. Or maybe you'd like to say here and now that you don't believe that any supernatural-designer-creator-god(s) designed and created ('caused') this universe or anything in it? Hey, you can always claim that aliens-did-it. LOL
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 26 2015,06:52

Updating the score card:
< Having written, the Learned Hand no longer writes on at UD >
< Keith s is now Keith Sunk >
Posted by: Seversky on Feb. 01 2015,23:27

My login has just stopped working.   I am consigned to the Village of the Banned for a second time, no doubt to consider the error of my ways.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 02 2015,11:29

Error?

Error... Error... Error... Must sterilize...
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Feb. 02 2015,13:25

Timaeus over at UD made the following statement in response to Aurelio Smith:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I look forward to your refutation of my arguments in the earlier posts above — if you have one. But I no more expect you to be able to stay on topic than I would expect rvb, hrun, kohoutek, polistra, gmilling, Seversky or any of the others to have the spine — or the knowledge of science or theology — to defend their positions against my criticisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like it. Accuse people who are incapable of responding due to being being banned by Barry of being spineless and stupid because they don't respond.

Timmie must have really dug deep for some of these names. I commented as gmilling until I was banned a few months ago.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 02 2015,14:24

Two posts from Barry have been up all day. They advance Barry's belief that his beliefs trump science, because duh Barry is so obviously right in all things.

Two posts. One comment. From "News."
Posted by: Learned Hand on Feb. 02 2015,14:44

Two posts. One comment. From "News."

< Where is everybody? >
Posted by: Seversky on Feb. 02 2015,17:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where is everybody?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We're all here beyond:




of UD.  (Good picture of Bully Arrington)
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Feb. 02 2015,18:18

Another GEM from Barry Arrogant:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This debate really has degenerated to StephenB courageously and patiently trying to reason with the materialists; only to be met repeatedly with the verbal equivalent of feces flinging. I don’t know why you subject yourself to this Stephen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If, by feces (faeces, shit, poop, excrement) you mean rational argument, I agree with Barry. Why would StephenB continue to argue an indefensible point?
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Feb. 02 2015,20:09

After Barry has posted two OPs with only a response from Dense, he has now posted a third that tries to draw the distinction between the chemicals that make up a human body, and the obvious (according to him) supernatural design that turns these chemicals into a person.

< inane Barry crap >
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 02 2015,20:29

Re "the distinction between the chemicals that make up a human body"

It's alimentary!
Posted by: REC on Feb. 02 2015,23:20

27 Barry Arrington February 2, 2015 at 11:12 pm
goodusername @ 26:

Thank you for at least trying to meet the substance of the OP. I’ve just deleted half a dozen thumb sucking, crybaby comments.

.....

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....iment-2 >
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 03 2015,08:20

The ceiling voice is back and it is strong!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
18 skram < February 2, 2015 at 8:48 pm >

Barry Arrington:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On materialist premises, a human being is nothing more than a somewhat sophisticated mixture of its constituent chemicals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let’s not pretend that this describes our position. However, in case you’ve been living under a rock, Barry, I will quote Nobel laureate Phil Anderson’s 1972 essay “More is different.”
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The essay can be easily found on the web. Until Barry and his friends read it and at least try to understand the main points, there is no reason to engage them.

UD Editors: Until skram and his friends admit that emergence (which is what is described in the quote) is nothing more than materialist mysticism trying to pass itself off as an intellectually respectable scientific account, there is no need to deal with them. Skram, you can run off and comfort yourself with your little stories. Do not expect those who demand plausible accounts to be impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This morning skram has been silently banninated. Chalk this one up.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 03 2015,08:23

Barry scrubbed skram's further comments, but left out Joe's reply:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

42 Joe < February 3, 2015 at 6:27 am >

skram:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Second, if you think that emergence is mysticism, please offer a straightforward, reductionist, no-emergence-involved account of the physical property called rigidity, i.e., the ability of solids to maintain shape.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Emergence is mysticism because it is used as such. Just because emergence works in some cases doesn’t mean it is universally applicable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 03 2015,09:12

RIP, petrushka. Although not entirely silently.

It was interesting to have a final warning and bannation simultaneously.
Posted by: Lethean on Feb. 03 2015,12:24


Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 03 2015,13:06

For those who would like a magnetic personality but don't have it?
Posted by: NoName on Feb. 03 2015,13:14

You're saying he's a magnetic no-no-pole?

I think that's giving him far too much credit, but what the heck.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 03 2015,15:51

It would appear that the improbability drive has returned us to normal, after a brief sojourn into Barry's alternate reality.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Feb. 03 2015,15:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would appear that the improbability drive has returned us to normal, after a brief sojourn into Barry's alternate reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



UD Editors: Nice try, but this comment thread doesn't need another materialist pretending to believe in something that they obviously don't understand. The probability of being where you are is 1, so an improbability drive is self-evidently impossible. Come back when you're ready to apologize for testing my Christ-like magnanimity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tough break.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Feb. 03 2015,16:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that's giving him far too much credit, but what the heck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



UD Editors: Blasphemy will not be tolerated. No Name is out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yikes!
Posted by: NoName on Feb. 03 2015,16:20

Quote (Learned Hand @ Feb. 03 2015,17:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that's giving him far too much credit, but what the heck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



UD Editors: Blasphemy will not be tolerated. No Name is out of here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yikes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absurd.  There's no blasphemy in the message I posted here.  None.
Worse, he misspelled my nym.  Unacceptable.  Heretical.
He should be beaten to death with crucifixes over a 3-day period.
Or suffer the worst punishment of all, made to live out the rest of his life as himself; no greater torment can be imagined.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 08 2015,16:15

Barry reckons that out of 49,000 registered users, just 49 have been banned.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 08 2015,18:49

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 08 2015,16:15)
Barry reckons that out of 49,000 registered users, just 49 have been banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be 49 since the amnesty. What does that work out to? about two a day?

Pretty much everyone who's disagreed with him on anything.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Feb. 08 2015,19:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UDEditors: Who said anything about banning you? We want to keep you around as long as possible; you are Exhibit 1 demonstrating everything that is wrong with materialism, and we want to keep that exhibit on display as long as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was recently said by Barry to REC. Ironically, those are almost the identical words that Barry public ally said to me. Minutes before silently banning me.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 08 2015,19:32

This thread seems to have perked up quite a bit.

Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 08 2015,20:24

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 08 2015,18:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UDEditors: Who said anything about banning you? We want to keep you around as long as possible; you are Exhibit 1 demonstrating everything that is wrong with materialism, and we want to keep that exhibit on display as long as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was recently said by Barry to REC. Ironically, those are almost the identical words that Barry public ally said to me. Minutes before silently banning me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, apparently "as long as possible" consisted of those minutes!
Posted by: Learned Hand on Feb. 08 2015,21:08

I don't know much about ranking internet traffic, but I've been playing around with Alexa as a consequence of seeing a lot more traffic at Violent Metaphors. If you look up UD at Alexa, you can't see any past data because it's not ranked highly enough. If you compare it to another site, though, it'll show you < the past 6 months >.

UD was bouncing a little bit from a slump when it politely asked for more traffic by lifting the ban on "hundreds" of people. That was October 21. Since then, it's gone up almost 200,000 spots in the global rankings, from 591k to 408k and peaking at 380k along the way.

By the time Barry started telling us all how he really feels, the ranking had been pretty stable for about a month. Maybe he decided he'd wrung all the traffic he could out of dialog, so it was time to give angry shouting a try?
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 08 2015,21:33

Quote (Learned Hand @ Feb. 08 2015,19:08)
I don't know much about ranking internet traffic, but I've been playing around with Alexa as a consequence of seeing a lot more traffic at Violent Metaphors. If you look up UD at Alexa, you can't see any past data because it's not ranked highly enough. If you compare it to another site, though, it'll show you < the past 6 months >.

UD was bouncing a little bit from a slump when it politely asked for more traffic by lifting the ban on "hundreds" of people. That was October 21. Since then, it's gone up almost 200,000 spots in the global rankings, from 591k to 408k and peaking at 380k along the way.

By the time Barry started telling us all how he really feels, the ranking had been pretty stable for about a month. Maybe he decided he'd wrung all the traffic he could out of dialog, so it was time to give angry shouting a try?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Feb. 08 2015,21:58

Quote (Learned Hand @ Feb. 08 2015,21:08)
I don't know much about ranking internet traffic, but I've been playing around with Alexa as a consequence of seeing a lot more traffic at Violent Metaphors. If you look up UD at Alexa, you can't see any past data because it's not ranked highly enough. If you compare it to another site, though, it'll show you < the past 6 months >.

UD was bouncing a little bit from a slump when it politely asked for more traffic by lifting the ban on "hundreds" of people. That was October 21. Since then, it's gone up almost 200,000 spots in the global rankings, from 591k to 408k and peaking at 380k along the way.

By the time Barry started telling us all how he really feels, the ranking had been pretty stable for about a month. Maybe he decided he'd wrung all the traffic he could out of dialog, so it was time to give angry shouting a try?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link. It is very interesting. Apparently the fifth most common search key phrases that led to UD was

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5.  chlorine based life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That explains Barry.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 09 2015,17:28

Poor DesignDectiveDave - he highlighted hypocrisy around 'logical fallacies' and 'inference to the best explanation' so his comment was disappeared and his commentating ability removed.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 09 2015,20:33

No comment!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2015,23:26

KeithS, silently banned again for schooling KF on 2LoT.

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-59489 >
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 18 2015,08:49

That thread is just GOLD pure GOLD. Sal flouncing in and spanking the  whole fundy family, KF in full flight putting out straw ass hat fires, the fundy backwash choking on the smoke and Zac drumming up business at side show ally.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CJYman: Why not just bet on the sun whipping up a doghouse in the first place?

Because the evidence indicates that humans built the doghouse, and that humans and dogs evolved from common ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A cacophony of fundy butt hurt dished out by the running dogs of the materialist hegemony. Hahahahahaha.

And this guy....  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10
Jim SmithMarch 16, 2015 at 11:54 pm
“, 2nd Law arguments eventually collapse to a probability argument. ”

That is just as it should be … because the second law is a fancy way of discussing probability. Systems tend to disorder because it is more probable that chance molecular movements will produce disorder than order.

Saying abiogenesis is impossible because it violates the 2nd law and saying the earth is an open system so abiogensis is possible, are both just so stories unless you discuss actual probabilities based on our knowledge of the conditions on earth when life supposedly arose and our knowledge of chemistry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Confused?....erm..... if not in the Garden of Eden then ....ah lets see now yesterday? No?  the Day before then? Last week? No No No I've got it sometime around the time of er um great grandma's ......no that can't be right .....FUCK NO IT CAN"T BE NO MONKEYS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A MAD MOLECULE!!!!!

I love the smell of sizzling fundies in the evening.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 18 2015,19:32

All that remains is Mike Elzinga to school them on "chance molecular movements".
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 19 2015,20:27

What about chance intelligent molecular movements?  :)
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 19 2015,20:32

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 19 2015,20:27)
What about chance intelligent molecular movements?  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even UD wasn't that stupid.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 19 2015,20:34

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 19 2015,20:32)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 19 2015,20:27)
What about chance intelligent molecular movements?  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even UD wasn't that stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I beg to differ. That sounds a lot like gpuccio.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 22 2015,09:24

This is off-topic to Uncommon Descent, but seems appropriate to this thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Box >: Zachriel #50,

If I were a moderator of this forum I would delete these kind of posts of yours.

To the perceptive onlooker it should be obvious that you are not addressing my arguments. You quote me and write something irrelevant in return, creating the illusion that there is some kind of debate going on, but actually there is nothing there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We responded directly to Box's point about dynamic equilibrium – homeostasis.

If it is obvious to the perceptive onlooker that our comments lack merit, as Box says, then deleting them isn't necessary. If it isn't obvious, then deleting them would be a disservice to the discussion.
Posted by: The whole truth on April 10 2015,06:01

phoenix has been banned at UD.

Clarice has been banned at UD.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on April 10 2015,08:35

Quote (The whole truth @ April 10 2015,06:01)
phoenix has been banned at UD.

Clarice has been banned at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lack of focus has been arguing with Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings about the one sided banning policy of UD. So he/she is probably going to be the next on the list.
Posted by: k.e.. on April 10 2015,09:36

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 10 2015,16:35)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 10 2015,06:01)
phoenix has been banned at UD.

Clarice has been banned at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lack of focus has been arguing with Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings about the one sided banning policy of UD. So he/she is probably going to be the next on the list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeh godz not predesignated baninations! Has teh tea party found another cost savings?
Posted by: Zachriel on April 11 2015,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Mung >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
liar of Focus: UD routinely bans people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be, even though the comments are polite and civil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s a lie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: It really is astonishing how stupid some of the things you say are. Into the moderation box for a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ptaylor on April 14 2015,16:43

I think this qualifies for inclusion here. For context, the discussion is about Dawkins' comments about the 'pitiless indifference' of aspects of the universe:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
70
Piotr     April 14, 2015 at 3:22 pm

#68 Barry,

Supporting your quote-mining with more of the same? Go ahead, make my day.

UDEditors: In Piotr’s moral system lying or a reckless disregard for the truth are good. So why should we care what he thinks? Piotr, at first we believed you were just stupid and that perhaps our efforts to correct you would be fruitful. But we were wrong. You are affirmatively mendacious, and we can’t fix that. Bye bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on April 14 2015,17:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.

UD Editors: Lack of Focus has continued to insult me. He will no longer be with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on April 14 2015,17:22

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 14 2015,17:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.

UD Editors: Lack of Focus has continued to insult me. He will no longer be with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made sure to post the above as soon as I saw it.

This is war it now looks like:
[QUOTE]“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.

What a lying duplicitous sack of shit Barry is. My apologies to all other sacks of shit
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 14 2015,17:37

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 14 2015,17:22)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.

UD Editors: Lack of Focus has continued to insult me. He will no longer be with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made sure to post the above as soon as I saw it.

This is war it now looks like:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a lying duplicitous sack of shit Barry is. My apologies to all other sacks of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, at least the big turd gave you a few minutes' notice.  Most of us got the silent bannination where our posts just stop appearing.  :)
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on April 14 2015,17:49

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 14 2015,17:37)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 14 2015,17:22)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.

UD Editors: Lack of Focus has continued to insult me. He will no longer be with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made sure to post the above as soon as I saw it.

This is war it now looks like:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“UDEditors: And it is probably too much to hope that you will put up a cogent argument in defense of your position instead of snits, snears and distractions. But we do keep hoping.”

Barry, I have explained the conditions under which I would participate in a discussion with you. They were simple. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Obviously you are having difficulty honouring this request. Cheers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a lying duplicitous sack of shit Barry is. My apologies to all other sacks of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, at least the big turd gave you a few minutes' notice.  Most of us got the silent bannination where our posts just stop appearing.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think it was even a few minutes. His little missive was deleted in the amount of time it took me to post the first one here.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 14 2015,18:05

Barry to Piotr, via The Loudspeaker in the Ceiling:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< UDEditors: > In Piotr’s moral system lying or a reckless disregard for the truth are good. So why should we care what he thinks? Piotr, at first we believed you were just stupid and that perhaps our efforts to correct you would be fruitful. But we were wrong. You are affirmatively mendacious, and we can’t fix that. Bye bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Get it while it's hot.


Posted by: The whole truth on April 14 2015,19:05

I'm blocked from seeing the UD site unless I go through a proxy server.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 15 2015,11:48

Pre-emptive entry for RDFish after he gives Banny a well deserved verbal kick in the nads. :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RDFish April 15, 2015 at 10:38 am

Hi Barry,
After calling me names, titling two threads to insult me, accusing me of dodging your arguments, and generally responding with nothing but asshat comments to my good faith arguments, you now are too cowardly to respond to my post in which I systematically dismantle your naĂŻve attempt at philosophical argument. Feel good about yourself, do you?
Cheers,
RDFish/AIGuy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on April 15 2015,12:57

Barry is a cartoon character. He's like Yosemite Sam minus the integrity and sex appeal.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on April 15 2015,13:52

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2015,12:57)
Barry is a cartoon character. He's like Yosemite Sam minus the integrity and sex appeal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always envisioned him more like Foghorn Leghorn. Speaking a lot but saying little.

Posted by: Zachriel on April 17 2015,13:41

Quote (Zachriel @ April 11 2015,14:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Mung >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
liar of Focus: UD routinely bans people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be, even though the comments are polite and civil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s a lie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: It really is astonishing how stupid some of the things you say are. Into the moderation box for a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Previously, our comments were put in the moderation queue, then disappeared. Now they are appearing without moderation.
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2015,15:27

It's more efficient that way!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 08 2015,18:26

Barry has Hidden Obliviated Aurelio Smith upside the head, deleting every post authored by the Philippine Ferrari:






Oops, nothing to quote, because Barry doesn't want us to know.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 09 2015,08:26

Found this vestige, as a quote by another commenter:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aurelio Smith: I still defend your right to your own thoughts and expression, no matter how daft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on June 01 2015,01:28

< Unblocked! >
Posted by: Quack on June 09 2015,16:32

I don't care enogh to bother with what may have happened to Cabal at UcD, I just note that he no longer is able to login. Who'd have thought they could stoop to the bottom level like that to an innocent and softspoken character like that!

Just because he opinionated that pro ID arguments mainly consist of arguments like 'evolution is false, therefore ID' or words to that effect. He must have hit a nerve.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 22 2015,11:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I am sickened by the vile, evil, putrescent slime Zach spews into the UD combox. I am conflicted. On the one hand, I can ban him and prevent him from using this combox as a platform to spew his venom. On the other hand, evil must be exposed, confronted and stamped out like roaches scampering across the floor when the lights are turned on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That, and Zachriel is Hitler.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 22 2015,12:34

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 22 2015,12:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I have elected to put him in the moderation queue so I can get some rest. I will let him out in a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry wins the argument again!
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Aug. 22 2015,13:08

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 22 2015,12:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I have elected to put him in the moderation queue so I can get some rest. I will let him out in a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry wins the argument again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't bet on him letting you out in a couple days. That would require him to keep his word. Something that he has a very hard time doing.

I suspect that he took this action because you caught him in an indefensible statement (I.e., that donation of body parts should only be made with the consent of the donor), thereby, prohibiting transplants in children.  

But, Barry's logic is that terminating a two day old pregnancy is evil, but preventing a valedictorian from giving a speech because he is gay is morally imperative. He really is a close minded little bigot.
Posted by: Nils Ruhr on Aug. 24 2015,01:38

@Zachriel: Why are you still posting anything on uncommondescent?
Posted by: KevinB on Aug. 24 2015,05:52

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Aug. 24 2015,01:38)
@Zachriel: Why are you still posting anything on uncommondescent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it really winds up Barry and his friends.

The real question is why Zach is still allowed to port on UD.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 24 2015,11:13

Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 24 2015,04:52)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Aug. 24 2015,01:38)
@Zachriel: Why are you still posting anything on uncommondescent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it really winds up Barry and his friends.

The real question is why Zach is still allowed to port on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But is he allowed to starboard?
Posted by: KevinB on Aug. 24 2015,13:26

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2015,11:13)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 24 2015,04:52)
 
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Aug. 24 2015,01:38)
@Zachriel: Why are you still posting anything on uncommondescent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because it really winds up Barry and his friends.

The real question is why Zach is still allowed to port on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But is he allowed to starboard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not without a Bill of Rights.

PS. I see that Zach has been put in moderation so that BA can be rude about him without fear of contradiction.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 24 2015,15:56

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 22 2015,13:08)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 22 2015,12:37)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I have elected to put him in the moderation queue so I can get some rest. I will let him out in a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry wins the argument again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't bet on him letting you out in a couple days. That would require him to keep his word. Something that he has a very hard time doing.

I suspect that he took this action because you caught him in an indefensible statement (I.e., that donation of body parts should only be made with the consent of the donor), thereby, prohibiting transplants in children.  

But, Barry's logic is that terminating a two day old pregnancy is evil, but preventing a valedictorian from giving a speech because he is gay is morally imperative. He really is a close minded little bigot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were right! Of course. Barry created an entire new post misrepresenting our position. Our reply was in moderation for a few minutes, but has now disappeared.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I castigated Zachriel for his support of the practice of chopping little boys and girls into pieces and selling the pieces like meat in the marketplace.

Zachriel: That is not our position, which is that there should be no marketplace for most human tissues or organs. You might want to publish a retraction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He knows this, as he was corrected several times previously.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 24 2015,16:13

a wreteched hive of scum and villainy.

And tardolalia.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 24 2015,16:13

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Aug. 24 2015,01:38)
@Zachriel: Why are you still posting anything on uncommondescent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We like to keep our minions busy.

In any case, it shows that the moderators at Uncommon Descent are not interested in open discussion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you support abortion-rights, you're evil like Hitler.
Would you abort Hitler is you had the chance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 25 2015,17:42

gah - wrong thread.


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 16 2015,09:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: eigenstate came in and, amazingly, tried to assert that there is no difference between LH’s first statement and his second statement. There is only so much willful disruption and dishonesty that we will tolerate. We have been very patient with eigenstate, but enough is enough. He will be in moderation for a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Barry Arrington calls eigenstate dishonest, then puts him in moderation. He follows up with an entire thread accusing eigenstate of lying.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: The real question is what motivates him to engage in such insane denials?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As there is no response by eigenstate, Barry Arrington wins another argument.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 16 2015,10:01

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 16 2015,09:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: eigenstate came in and, amazingly, tried to assert that there is no difference between LH’s first statement and his second statement. There is only so much willful disruption and dishonesty that we will tolerate. We have been very patient with eigenstate, but enough is enough. He will be in moderation for a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Barry Arrington calls eigenstate dishonest, then puts him in moderation. He follows up with an entire thread accusing eigenstate of lying.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: The real question is what motivates him to engage in such insane denials?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As there is no response by eigenstate, Barry Arrington wins another argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Z, has Barry kept his promise and lifted you from the depths of moderation after two days of it being invoked?
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 16 2015,10:20

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 16 2015,10:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 16 2015,09:47)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: eigenstate came in and, amazingly, tried to assert that there is no difference between LH’s first statement and his second statement. There is only so much willful disruption and dishonesty that we will tolerate. We have been very patient with eigenstate, but enough is enough. He will be in moderation for a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Barry Arrington calls eigenstate dishonest, then puts him in moderation. He follows up with an entire thread accusing eigenstate of lying.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: The real question is what motivates him to engage in such insane denials?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As there is no response by eigenstate, Barry Arrington wins another argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Z, has Barry kept his promise and lifted you from the depths of moderation after two days of it being invoked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We tried a bit after two days. The comment appeared, then disappeared a while later, showing someone's active involvement. We haven't tried since then, but will at some point in the near future.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 25 2015,15:49

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 16 2015,10:20)
We tried a bit after two days. The comment appeared, then disappeared a while later, showing someone's active involvement. We haven't tried since then, but will at some point in the near future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just commented on Cornelius Hunter's latest post. Apparently, Zachriel is out of moderation. Best not tp criticize Barry Arrington on his infallibility with regards to self-evident truths.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 25 2015,21:00

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 25 2015,15:49)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 16 2015,10:20)
We tried a bit after two days. The comment appeared, then disappeared a while later, showing someone's active involvement. We haven't tried since then, but will at some point in the near future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just commented on Cornelius Hunter's latest post. Apparently, Zachriel is out of moderation. Best not tp criticize Barry Arrington on his infallibility with regards to self-evident truths.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry always liked you better than me. Teacher's pet.
Posted by: franklin on Oct. 28 2015,00:57

looks like franklin has joined the list of the silently banned.  Here is the last exchange I had with Barry:

franklinOctober 27, 2015 at 10:33 pm
Barry
Because if he did he certainly would have said so.

franklin
Why would Jenner feel obligated to say so? There have long been rumors that Jaime Lee Curtis is intersex and despite years and years of rumor and questioning she has felt no need to provide an answer to those questions.

In other words you are simply assuming he has no underlying pathology because you want to portray him in a negative light. I have understood that position from the start.

151
Barry ArringtonOctober 27, 2015 at 10:44 pm
franklin:  â€śWhy would Jenner feel obligated to say so?”

To justify what he is doing. Now you are just being intentionally dense, which shows bad faith. End of discussion.

end of discussion apparently means you've butt hurt and embarrassed so thoroughly that I need to censor you.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-585218 >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 28 2015,12:41

This is what ID is reduced to. Halfwit lawyers holding rigged discussions.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 28 2015,14:50

< We can clone Jesus now! >

Thank God that no efforts were wasted on amputees or curbing God's designed gift to his children, P. falciparum.  Turning wafers into bloody messes is a far greater deed!

Oh, were it real it would be impressive, even with skewed priorities, but the provenance, well...  No chance of any pious fraud, is there?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 28 2015,20:41

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 28 2015,20:50)
< We can clone Jesus now! >

Thank God that no efforts were wasted on amputees or curbing God's designed gift to his children, P. falciparum.  Turning wafers into bloody messes is a far greater deed!

Oh, were it real it would be impressive, even with skewed priorities, but the provenance, well...  No chance of any pious fraud, is there?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uptight Blowhard recognises that PaV is doing the cause no favours with all this miracle talk....



ID program?  ???

e: fucking Glen making me post in the wrong thread - you swine you'll be sorry!!!  :angry:


Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 14 2015,10:44

Some posts disappeared from this thread:

An Apology to Dr. Moran
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....r-moran >

Someone noted that the proper title is Prof. Moran, not Dr. Moran. Barry asked "Why?" We responded that Queen Elizabeth is also the Duchess of Edinburgh, but she is properly addressed as Her Majesty the Queen. It is considered polite to use the highest title when addressing someone, particularly when issuing an apology.  We did note that Larry Moran presumably doesn't care all that much one or the other. Most people probably call him "Larry".

We considered marking the comment off-topic, but as it was an apology thread, it did seem relevant.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 14 2015,10:57

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:44)
Some posts disappeared from this thread:

An Apology to Dr. Moran
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....r-moran >

Someone noted that the proper title is Prof. Moran, not Dr. Moran. Barry asked "Why?" We responded that Queen Elizabeth is also the Duchess of Edinburgh, but she is properly addressed as Her Majesty the Queen. It is considered polite to use the highest title when addressing someone, particularly when issuing an apology.  We did note that Larry Moran presumably doesn't care all that much one or the other. Most people probably call him "Larry".

We considered marking the comment off-topic, but as it was an apology thread, it did seem relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for the off-topic theory.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: Bond movies are, too me, much of a muchness. If you liked the first 23 installments (and I did for the most part), you will like this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 14 2015,11:43

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:57)
So much for the off-topic theory.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: Bond movies are, too me, much of a muchness. If you liked the first 23 installments (and I did for the most part), you will like this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we stand corrected. Jack Jones shows why James Bond is relevant to the debate over Intelligent Design:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jack Jones >: The Aston Martin did not come about by a tornado in a junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 14 2015,12:17

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,11:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:57)
So much for the off-topic theory.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: Bond movies are, too me, much of a muchness. If you liked the first 23 installments (and I did for the most part), you will like this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we stand corrected. Jack Jones shows why James Bond is relevant to the debate over Intelligent Design:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jack Jones >: The Aston Martin did not come about by a tornado in a junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aston Martins come from poofs in the junkyard.  Everyone knows that, by analogy to how humans were poofed through time.

Tornado, bah!

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Bob O'H on Nov. 14 2015,13:35

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,12:17)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,11:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:57)
So much for the off-topic theory.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: Bond movies are, too me, much of a muchness. If you liked the first 23 installments (and I did for the most part), you will like this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we stand corrected. Jack Jones shows why James Bond is relevant to the debate over Intelligent Design:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jack Jones >: The Aston Martin did not come about by a tornado in a junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aston Martins come from poofs in the junkyard.  Everyone knows that, by analogy to how humans were poofed through time.

Tornado, bah!

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aston Martins come from poofs in the junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Q outed!
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 14 2015,16:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,13:35)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,12:17)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,11:43)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:57)
So much for the off-topic theory.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: Bond movies are, too me, much of a muchness. If you liked the first 23 installments (and I did for the most part), you will like this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we stand corrected. Jack Jones shows why James Bond is relevant to the debate over Intelligent Design:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jack Jones >: The Aston Martin did not come about by a tornado in a junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aston Martins come from poofs in the junkyard.  Everyone knows that, by analogy to how humans were poofed through time.

Tornado, bah!

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aston Martins come from poofs in the junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Q outed!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it just me or joes Jack Jones sound like Joe?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 15 2015,03:09

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,10:17)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,11:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:57)
So much for the off-topic theory.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: Bond movies are, too me, much of a muchness. If you liked the first 23 installments (and I did for the most part), you will like this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we stand corrected. Jack Jones shows why James Bond is relevant to the debate over Intelligent Design:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jack Jones >: The Aston Martin did not come about by a tornado in a junkyard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aston Martins come from poofs in the junkyard.  Everyone knows that, by analogy to how humans were poofed through time.

Tornado, bah!

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No self-respecting poof would waste time in a junkyard.
Posted by: REC on Nov. 16 2015,20:31

A fascinating example of Barry having a conversation with himself:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-588420 >

And he blames me for deleting them.....which is impossible.

< http://imgur.com/imZFDMc....imZFDMc >

Try it. You can edit them down to 1 character if you do it in 20 min, or request deletion. But can you make them disappear?

ETA: No idea what this claim that I made a new account with the same name is about. You simply can't do that if the name is already taken.

ETA2: Guess I also put myself in moderation

ETA3: The claim I made a second account with the same name is so odd, that perhaps something really weird has happened. I'll be charitable to Barry and think someone monkeyed with my account? Can't login now.


Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 16 2015,20:55

Quote (REC @ Nov. 16 2015,20:31)
A fascinating example of Barry having a conversation with himself:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-588420 >

And he blames me for deleting them.....which is impossible.

< http://imgur.com/imZFDMc....imZFDMc >

Try it. You can edit them down to 1 character if you do it in 20 min, or request deletion. But can you make them disappear?

ETA: No idea what this claim that I made a new account with the same username is about. You simply can't do that if the username is already taken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he accuses you of creating a new UD account under the same name.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UDEditors: Yes, you do, with respect to your own comments. You have also created a new UD Account with the same name. Why did you do that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Brian Douglas has pointed out the idiocy of his accusation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, Barry, WordPress does not allow different accounts with the same name. Even if you forget your password, you can’t create a new account with the same name, or the same email. Surely you know this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no idea if BD is correct, but I think I have become clairvoyant. Bye-bye Brian.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 16 2015,21:01

Quote (REC @ Nov. 16 2015,20:31)
A fascinating example of Barry having a conversation with himself:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-588420 >

And he blames me for deleting them.....which is impossible.

< http://imgur.com/imZFDMc....imZFDMc >

Try it. You can edit them down to 1 character if you do it in 20 min, or request deletion. But can you make them disappear?

ETA: No idea what this claim that I made a new account with the same name is about. You simply can't do that if the name is already taken.

ETA2: Guess I also put myself in moderation

ETA3: The claim I made a second account with the same name is so odd, that perhaps something really weird has happened. I'll be charitable to Barry and think someone monkeyed with my account? Can't login now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be willing to cut him some slack, but given his history of Douchery and his love of 'inference of the best explanation'...
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 16 2015,21:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2015,21:01)
Quote (REC @ Nov. 16 2015,20:31)
A fascinating example of Barry having a conversation with himself:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-588420 >

And he blames me for deleting them.....which is impossible.

< http://imgur.com/imZFDMc....imZFDMc >

Try it. You can edit them down to 1 character if you do it in 20 min, or request deletion. But can you make them disappear?

ETA: No idea what this claim that I made a new account with the same name is about. You simply can't do that if the name is already taken.

ETA2: Guess I also put myself in moderation

ETA3: The claim I made a second account with the same name is so odd, that perhaps something really weird has happened. I'll be charitable to Barry and think someone monkeyed with my account? Can't login now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be willing to cut him some slack, but given his history of Douchery and his love of 'inference of the best explanation'...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The latest from Barry



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Looks like REC has thrown in the towel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By "thrown in the towel" I can only assume that Banny has banned REC and declared victory.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Nov. 17 2015,02:03

Quote (REC @ Nov. 16 2015,20:31)
A fascinating example of Barry having a conversation with himself:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-588420 >

And he blames me for deleting them.....which is impossible.

< http://imgur.com/imZFDMc....imZFDMc >

Try it. You can edit them down to 1 character if you do it in 20 min, or request deletion. But can you make them disappear?

ETA: No idea what this claim that I made a new account with the same name is about. You simply can't do that if the name is already taken.

ETA2: Guess I also put myself in moderation

ETA3: The claim I made a second account with the same name is so odd, that perhaps something really weird has happened. I'll be charitable to Barry and think someone monkeyed with my account? Can't login now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can request deletion, after which the post is put in moderation and not deleted (I've just tried this < here >, but the link will probably 404).
Posted by: peteFun on Nov. 22 2015,10:18

And... peteFun's most recent post is gone, and all his new posts no longer appear at all.  Details in the Uncommonly Dense thread... fun while it lasted though.  Probably for the best - my kid is better, back to work on Monday, and no time for arguing on the internet these days.  

But man this brought back some good memories from wasting time in grad school :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 23 2015,16:08

< Barry's Butthurt Intensifies >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11
Barry ArringtonNovember 23, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Zach

Two statements are on the table:

1. Yours: “Cladistics assumes the data form a tree.”

2. Mine: “Therefore, it cannot establish that the data form a tree”

I asked you whether statement 2 follows from statement 1, and in bad faith you tried to dodge the question. That is what you always do when you’re stuck. Not this time. You are in moderation. You will not be released from moderation until you answer the question. If this means you never post at UD again, I can live with that

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 23 2015,21:27

Good thread worth reading. Glenn Davidson explains abductive vs deductive inference. Barry flounders with a piss weak "thats what ID uses". Further down Nick Matzke explains the problem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Getting this confused is one of Barry’s mistakes, amongst numerous other failings (high arrogance, low knowledge, high propensity to blab without doing any research in the primary literature, reliance on quotes from popularizations rather than absorbing the consensus in the primary literature.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bang on, couldn't have said it better.

ETA: Second thoughts, Matzke was probably a little too vague and unnecessarily politically correct. Barry is such recalcitrant recidivist asshat that come what may he couldn't tell the difference between a tautology and a shit sandwich. God help his paying customers if he has any.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 23 2015,21:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Too many emotional retards over there.” referring to TSZ

I agree. People at UD are much more mature than at TSZ. I have seen very few people here call opposing commenters liars, stupid, willfully dishonest, pathetic snivelling cowards, Strawman Humpers, dirt worshippers, and other immature epithets that the people at TSZ use all the time in describing us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Comment 4, < While it lasts >
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 23 2015,21:52

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 23 2015,21:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Too many emotional retards over there.” referring to TSZ

I agree. People at UD are much more mature than at TSZ. I have seen very few people here call opposing commenters liars, stupid, willfully dishonest, pathetic snivelling cowards, Strawman Humpers, dirt worshippers, and other immature epithets that the people at TSZ use all the time in describing us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Comment 4, < While it lasts >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the comment has survived (so far) but Joe Halfgallon hasn't. This is a record for me. Two comments: the first to kiss Barry's ass, the second to get banned for pointing out the truth.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 23 2015,22:16

I think he maybe comes here to see if it's you?
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 23 2015,22:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 23 2015,22:16)
I think he maybe comes here to see if it's you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt. But how pathetic is that?  That is almost Gordon KairosFocus Mullings paranoid.

What he can't do is refute the fact that he is more abusive, arrogant and obnoxious (the three A's, except that one is an O) than anyone (ie, everyone combined) at TSZ.

All he risks at TSZ is ridicule for not being able to defend his opinions in a venue that he doesn't control. That is something that he is too much of a pathetic snivelling coward to allow to happen.

But, on the off chance that he is willing to respond (not likely for such a coward) what are you afraid of?  Honestly debating the issues, or losing site hits (and ad revenue)? The most likely inference is, the latter.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 25 2015,19:29

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 23 2015,22:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 23 2015,22:16)
I think he maybe comes here to see if it's you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt. But how pathetic is that?  That is almost Gordon KairosFocus Mullings paranoid.

What he can't do is refute the fact that he is more abusive, arrogant and obnoxious (the three A's, except that one is an O) than anyone (ie, everyone combined) at TSZ.

All he risks at TSZ is ridicule for not being able to defend his opinions in a venue that he doesn't control. That is something that he is too much of a pathetic snivelling coward to allow to happen.

But, on the off chance that he is willing to respond (not likely for such a coward) what are you afraid of?  Honestly debating the issues, or losing site hits (and ad revenue)? The most likely inference is, the latter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait till he finds out that I am also Daniel King. He always uses that name as an example of an ID opponent who has been a long time commenter at UD.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 26 2015,00:59

Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Nov. 26 2015,01:16

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 26 2015,06:35

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,09:16)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh, that's nothing Joe is < The Tourettes Pianist. >
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 26 2015,08:56

Did I ever mention red herings here?
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 26 2015,08:57

PS: or strawmen spaked in ad hominem?


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 26 2015,08:59

PPS: or the Abu Ambassadeur reel?


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 26 2015,08:59

PPPS: or FSCO/I?


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 26 2015,09:02

PPPPS: or Lewontin?


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 26 2015,09:03

PPPPPS: Mafiosi style outing or Gordon E. Mullings?
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 26 2015,09:37

Nuclear trip wire?
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 26 2015,09:38

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,01:16)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You too?
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 26 2015,16:27

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,01:16)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[singing] Ohhh… I'm an atheist and I'm okay,
I sleep all night and blaspheme all day! [/singing]
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Nov. 26 2015,17:30

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2015,15:27)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,01:16)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[singing] Ohhh… I'm an atheist and I'm okay,
I sleep all night and blaspheme all day! [/singing]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like you're an amoral, degenerate god-denying type that puts on women's clothing and hangs around in bars.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 26 2015,17:32

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,17:30)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2015,15:27)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,01:16)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[singing] Ohhh… I'm an atheist and I'm okay,
I sleep all night and blaspheme all day! [/singing]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like you're an amoral, degenerate god-denying type that puts on women's clothing and hangs around in bars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a lumberjack. But I'm OK.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2015,21:11

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 26 2015,07:38)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,01:16)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm Frilly Dodger, and so's my wife.
Posted by: REC on Dec. 25 2015,09:24

25
Pro Hac Vice December 24, 2015 at 11:57 pm

PHV’s vicious mean-spirited Christmas morning attacked deleted. He will no longer be commenting in these pages.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-593628 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 25 2015,22:17

Quote (REC @ Dec. 25 2015,09:24)
25
Pro Hac Vice December 24, 2015 at 11:57 pm

PHV’s vicious mean-spirited Christmas morning attacked deleted. He will no longer be commenting in these pages.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-593628 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Written over his post, by a coward with no name.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Dec. 25 2015,22:57

Vicious and mean spirited! As I recall, I wrote something like, "I can have a low opinion of you and still wish you Merry Christmas, with perfect sincerity. Merry Christmas Barry!" I don't see how that's vicious or mean-spirited, especially compared to the nth iteration of Barry's "liar idiot hypocrite" mantra, and I think Barry doesn't either, given that he made sure no one could compare what I wrote to his casual calumny. But it's not my blog, and I meant what I said. Maybe all he wanted for Christmas was the chance to be venomous to someone he hates. A little birthday present for Jesus.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Dec. 25 2015,23:01

Oh! I think I actually wrote something like, "I can have a low opinion of you and still wish you Merry Christmas, with perfect sincerity. Can you do the same? Merry Christmas Barry and News and KF and Zachriel and keiths &c!"

Apparently he cannot do the same. Our holiday wishes were returned with angry spite. I guess there is to be no Christmas truce in the Great Spiritual War. It's not like Jesus would want anyone loving the other side anyway, right?
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 26 2015,12:33

A little late but a Merry Xmas to Ray M., Robert B., FL, Sal  and the others as well. It ought to be possible to lay down arms for a little while at Yuletide, in the firm knowledge that as soon as it is over those among us all so inclined may be at eachothers throat again.

(Ducking.)
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 26 2015,21:51

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 26 2015,12:33)
A little late but a Merry Xmas to Ray M., Robert B., FL, Sal  and the others as well. It ought to be possible to lay down arms for a little while at Yuletide, in the firm knowledge that as soon as it is over those among us all so inclined may be at eachothers throat again.

(Ducking.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A Christmas day purge by Barry of anyone who remotely disagreed with him. I was immediately banned (Paul Sussman) when I made the statement that anyone who uses the term "Speaks volumes", speaks volumes about the person who uses it. Apparently, that is ban worthy.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 26 2015,22:17

Maybe if you'd used a lower volume when using that phrase? Then again, maybe not. :p
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 26 2015,23:18

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 26 2015,21:51)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 26 2015,12:33)
A little late but a Merry Xmas to Ray M., Robert B., FL, Sal  and the others as well. It ought to be possible to lay down arms for a little while at Yuletide, in the firm knowledge that as soon as it is over those among us all so inclined may be at eachothers throat again.

(Ducking.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A Christmas day purge by Barry of anyone who remotely disagreed with him. I was immediately banned (Paul Sussman) when I made the statement that anyone who uses the term "Speaks volumes", speaks volumes about the person who uses it. Apparently, that is ban worthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course.

It speaks volumes about you that you said it "speaks volumes," and Barry simply took you at your word.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Learned Hand on Dec. 28 2015,18:51

Oh hey, did you know that if you close a Word file without saving it, you can still get it back? Found that out today looking for a piece of business, and realized that since I draft htmlified comments in Word I could call up the exact comment that Barry called a "vicious mean-spirited Christmas morning attack."

Pretty standard stuff. Barry shouts "idiot," "liar," and "hypocrite," then accuses the person he's abusing of not being civil. In this case, to credibly put himself on a moral high horse he had to delete my comment and lie about it. "Vicious mean-spirited Christmas morning attack" scores no points: it wasn't vicious, wasn't mean-spirited, wasn't an attack, and wasn't even on Christmas morning (not that the last one matters). But who needs to be honest about, or kind to, someone who disagrees with you? Apparently not Christians. Remember, by their fruits will you recognize them.

----------------------------------------

<i>You are the most hyper-partisan person who comments regularly on this blog. </i>

Am I? Can you give examples? Or is this just a belief you have to adopt to justify a personal insult?

<i>Thanks for clearing up that it is OK to depict innocent children as monkeys on a string in a political attack piece as long as it is not a racist trope. Idiot.</i>

What I actually said was, “there’s no reason to drag kids into that partisan battle, even if her intention was to criticize Cruz for politicizing them.” But if you were to respond to what I wrote, it would be harder for you to justify saying “idiot.” And what sort of conversation would it be if you weren’t spitting “liar” and “idiot” and “hypocrite” at people? People would think you were getting soft! Maybe even treating people like beloved neighbors instead of hated enemies. What would become of Uncommon Descent then?

<blockquote><i>But if someone draped traditionally Mexican images on the Cruzes, I would definitely be upset.</blockquote>
Liar. You would find some way to justify that too.</i>

No, I would find it racist and upsetting. But to believe that, you’d have to believe that I’m not a racist. Can you find it in your heart to believe that I’m not a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, <i>and</i> a racist all at once? Can Christian charity bend so far?

<i><blockquote>Here, the cartoonist explains that she meant that Cruz uses his children as props. Which he does, although I don’t think any more obnoxiously than many politicians.</blockquote>
Yes, politicians use their families as props. And up until now it never occurred to anyone that made them fair targets for vicious political attacks. And up until now no one would have defended such viciousness. <i>

That’s not true, and it’s pretty obviously not true. <a href=”http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/16/beck-and-limbaugh-join-forces-to-mock-little-gi/166287”>Limbaugh</a>, for example, called Chelsea the “white house dog” and Beck insulted Obama’s daughter’s intelligence. If I made a statement that was so obviously false, how long would it take you to pound LIAR into the response box? I forgive you, your comment was a harmless overstatement that no one believed.

<i>But since the attacks are against an awful conservative they are OK. So much for not letting your politics define your beliefs.</i>

Did I say that attacks on a conservative are OK? Not in the words you quote, which have nothing to do with whether the cartoonist was right to use his kids. I wrote that the cartoonist wasn’t making a racial attack on Cruz, and that nevertheless “there’s no reason to drag kids into that partisan battle.” But I forgive you.

<i>Who cares if it is a commentary on their race?</i>

News and KF, who commented at length above. Since your comment compared this cartoon to drawing Obama’s kids as monkeys, which would be a much more racially-charged cartoon, I assumed you shared their concern.

<i>Insult me and then wish me a merry Christmas. Hypocrite.</i>

I can both have a low opinion of you and wish you a merry Christmas, with perfect sincerity. Can you not do the same? Merry Christmas, Barry! And News and KF and Zachriel and Mung and GUN and keiths and Joe G and Lizzie and all the rest—merry Christmas, and happy holidays!
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 29 2015,03:25

For some reason using < and > doesn't work here. You have to use [ and ].
Posted by: rossum on Dec. 29 2015,03:55

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,03:25)
For some reason using < and > doesn't work here. You have to use [ and ].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is the difference between HTML and iB Code.  Click on the <a href="javascript:PopUp('http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=Legends&CODE=ibcode','HelpCard','250','400','0','1','1','1')" target="_blank">iB Code</a> link below the box you type your comment in.
Posted by: rossum on Dec. 29 2015,03:57

Quote (rossum @ Dec. 29 2015,03:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,03:25)
For some reason using < and > doesn't work here. You have to use [ and ].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is the difference between HTML and iB Code.  Click on the <a href="javascript:PopUp('http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=Legends&CODE=ibcode','HelpCard','250','400','0','1','1','1')" target="_blank">iB Code</a> link below the box you type your comment in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note to self: Do not use the "Preview" function before posting a link.  Try this one: iB Code
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 29 2015,04:33

Quote (rossum @ Dec. 29 2015,01:57)
 
Quote (rossum @ Dec. 29 2015,03:55)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,03:25)
For some reason using < and > doesn't work here. You have to use [ and ].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is the difference between HTML and iB Code.  Click on the <ahref="javascript:PopUp('http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=Legends&CODE=ibcode','HelpCard','250','400','0','1','1','1')"target="_blank">iB Code</a> link below the box you type your comment in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note to self: Do not use the "Preview" function before posting a link.  Try this one: <ahref="javascript:PopUp('http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=Legends&CODE=ibcode','HelpCard','250','400','0','1','1','1')"target="_blank">iB Code</a>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've never clicked on the iB PopUp. Thanks for pointing it out.

I've never heard of iB Code, and I'm curious about why it's used here.


ETA: Just seeing if I can make rossum's links clickable, like his second one above.

ETA: I give up.


Posted by: Woodbine on Dec. 29 2015,05:39

Imagine being Barry Arrington.

Just imagine.
Posted by: Cubist on Dec. 29 2015,05:45

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,04:33)
I've never heard of iB Code, and I'm curious about why it's used here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why iB Code rather than HTML? There's a lot of things you can do with HTML, including a number of dirty tricks used by spammers and crackers. Thus, no HTML = greatly reduced vulnerability. iB Code implements a restricted subset of HTML; the stuff iB Code doesn't implement, includes most (if not all) of the stuff which enables the aforementioned dirty tricks. Some online fora use a different subset-of-HTML called "BBCode"; same intended purpose as iB Code, somewhat different implementation details.
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 29 2015,05:56

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 29 2015,03:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,04:33)
I've never heard of iB Code, and I'm curious about why it's used here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why iB Code rather than HTML? There's a lot of things you can do with HTML, including a number of dirty tricks used by spammers and crackers. Thus, no HTML = greatly reduced vulnerability. iB Code implements a restricted subset of HTML; the stuff iB Code doesn't implement, includes most (if not all) of the stuff which enables the aforementioned dirty tricks. Some online fora use a different subset-of-HTML called "BBCode"; same intended purpose as iB Code, somewhat different implementation details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for your explanation.
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 29 2015,05:57

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 29 2015,03:39)
Imagine being Barry Arrington.

Just imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you're just being cruel.   ;)
Posted by: JonF on Dec. 29 2015,07:36

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 29 2015,05:33)

I've never heard of iB Code, and I'm curious about why it's used here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's more widely known as BB code and is used by almost all discussion board software.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Dec. 31 2015,16:16