Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The Skeptical Zone started by Richardthughes


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 15 2011,22:52

here it is:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....wp >

I did dun 3 postings, but my comments r not promoted.

I has a sad.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 16 2011,05:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2011,17:52)
here it is:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp >

I did dun 3 postings, but my comments r not promoted.

I has a sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a Wordpress template, Rich. First comments from new posters are automatically held in moderation. Maybe Lizzie hasn't had time with all the stuff she's been posting at UD.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 16 2011,08:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2011,22:52)
here it is:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp >

I did dun 3 postings, but my comments r not promoted.

I has a sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you:

Didn't use enough Oil of Ad-Hom in the post?

Failed to quote the correct Chapter & Verse from The correct version of The Bibble? (KJV of course)

Throw your pc from the plane?

Forgot to add enough Lewontin?

Oh wait - that's UD Posting Rules!  

Nevermind...

Give it time and you'll get through!  It's not UD, right?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 16 2011,08:25

How did you log in? There seem to be several doorways. Perhaps one is broken.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2011,08:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 16 2011,08:25)
How did you log in? There seem to be several doorways. Perhaps one is broken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just general comments submission. I have since gone through registration. Returning later, I can see new comments approved after where I posted, so I think they are either lost or discarded.
Posted by: Febble on Aug. 16 2011,12:19

Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 16 2011,13:15

Quote (Febble @ Aug. 16 2011,12:19)
Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.

I've enjoyed your work BTW.
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 16 2011,20:29

Seriously - the "Atheists get morality from religion" canard?  I had expected better based on the arguments I've seen quoted.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 16 2011,20:31

I think I killed it. Or at least stunk up the place so no one else wants to play.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 16 2011,21:14

Quote (Febble @ Aug. 16 2011,12:19)
Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Febble, be sure to add a bolded comment, AKA the loudspeaker in the ceiling, rebutting Rich's comments.  He would really enjoy it, it would give him fond reminisces of DaveScot days.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 17 2011,00:19

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 16 2011,22:14)
Quote (Febble @ Aug. 16 2011,12:19)
Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Febble, be sure to add a bolded comment, AKA the loudspeaker in the ceiling, rebutting Rich's comments. He would really enjoy it, it would give him fond reminisces of DaveScot days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sniff
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 18 2011,12:19

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 16 2011,23:19)
sniff
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on, I've got a Kleenex around here someplace...
Posted by: Dr.GH on Aug. 18 2011,18:31

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 18 2011,10:19)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 16 2011,23:19)
sniff
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hold on, I've got a Kleenex around here someplace...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that one rather crusty?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 18 2011,19:18

That's why people are afraid of clowns.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 19 2011,09:30

Somebody that's afraid of clowns can just tell the clown to not do anything funny.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 19 2011,13:57

So if you put your credentials in "Leave a Reply" without logging in, the post gets eaten.
Posted by: Febble on Aug. 19 2011,14:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,13:57)
So if you put your credentials in "Leave a Reply" without logging in, the post gets eaten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it?

Oops, will try to sort that out.

Also, if you want OP posting privileges let me know.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 19 2011,14:52

Quote (Febble @ Aug. 19 2011,14:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,13:57)
So if you put your credentials in "Leave a Reply" without logging in, the post gets eaten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it?

Oops, will try to sort that out.

Also, if you want OP posting privileges let me know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me, moi?

I do. I shall try and leave my priors and irreverence here. I also need clarification on your stance on LOLcats, FT4U, All science so far! and other AtBC memes.
Posted by: Febble on Aug. 19 2011,15:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,14:52)
Quote (Febble @ Aug. 19 2011,14:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,13:57)
So if you put your credentials in "Leave a Reply" without logging in, the post gets eaten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does it?

Oops, will try to sort that out.

Also, if you want OP posting privileges let me know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me, moi?

I do. I shall try and leave my priors and irreverence here. I also need clarification on your stance on LOLcats, FT4U, All science so far! and other AtBC memes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 20 2012,09:26

After a hiatus, < it's up and running again >.

Hope people will drop by :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 20 2012,10:48

any odds on how long until Joe plays tough guy?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 20 2012,12:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 16 2011,11:15)

If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Ogre - wp question:
Over on TSZ, I seem to have lost the ability to edit, even when logged in to wp. All I see on the dashboard are spellcheck and expand-window icon. I used to have edit buttons, html tags and all sorts of other stuff.
What me doin' rong?
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 20 2012,16:20

Not sure, but I just released two posts from the spam filter.

WP is a bit like our aging Dyson washing machine.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 20 2012,16:44

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 20 2012,12:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 16 2011,11:15)

If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Ogre - wp question:
Over on TSZ, I seem to have lost the ability to edit, even when logged in to wp. All I see on the dashboard are spellcheck and expand-window icon. I used to have edit buttons, html tags and all sorts of other stuff.
What me doin' rong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It may be that Liz turned off editing or has edited permissions.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 20 2012,20:43

Well, it's never a good idea to leave edit permissions on when creationists are commenting.

...and I don't assume bad faith on their part, I simply look at the evidence.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 20 2012,23:15

As I recall, the edit function had a "timeout" feature after the post was entered which I thought was a good way to prevent another Chris Doyle or FtK "incident".
Heck, I'll forgo an edit function if I can have a "preview" function instead. I'm always screwing up the quotes, tags, and anything requiring code-based protocols or semantics.

Edited, to make sure I still <b><i><u>can!</u></i></b>


Posted by: Febble on Feb. 21 2012,03:11

There should be a 30 minute edit window for comments, and posts can no longer be edited after midnight (to avoid deletion of entire threads).

There are two ways of editing a post, one gives you a menu and no wysiwyg, the other gives you wysiwyg but no menu.

It would be nice to figure out how to give people both....
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 22 2012,22:28

Breaking news:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen > on February 23, 2012 at 3:29 am said:

Dear Liz,

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 22 2012,23:23

awwwww tarderace ran back to bullys skirts and gordons corrective F/N Mr Leather
Posted by: Amadan on Feb. 23 2012,02:17

A simple probability calculation shows it was inevitable that Brave Sir Dodger would end up corroding his armour from the inside.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 23 2012,08:41

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 22 2012,22:28)
Breaking news:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen > on February 23, 2012 at 3:29 am said:

Dear Liz,

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.

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


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


That's a shame, Gil. You had a chance to engage, rather than preach to flock. I think Gil's a good guy deep-down, despite his peccadilloes.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 23 2012,11:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2012,06:41)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 22 2012,22:28)
Breaking news:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen > on February 23, 2012 at 3:29 am said:

Dear Liz,

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.

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


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


That's a shame, Gil. You had a chance to engage, rather than preach to flock. I think Gil's a good guy deep-down, despite his peccadilloes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hardly surprising.  He's been playing one song for years: "Personal incredulity, and you should believe me because I'm smart".  

It's not much of a song, but that frilly shirt looks fabulous.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 23 2012,12:27

Site now has mini-forum attached.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 23 2012,20:58

From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that < LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

< http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 23 2012,21:04

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,20:58)
From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that < LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

< http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn you.... I just shot some nice local small-batch rye out my nose on that one...

< Mmmm >

On the plus side, the burn is somewhat pleasant...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 23 2012,21:14

snort it back in!
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 24 2012,01:36

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,20:58)
From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that < LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

< http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW. You reall ymade my day.
Posted by: The whole truth on Feb. 24 2012,04:32

I just made the mistake of looking at some of the comments at TSZ in the Good arguments and straw men thread. As usual the bible thumping IDiots are calling people names (like "troll") and making insulting remarks about reading comprehension and other things to or about non-IDiots.

I stopped reading when I saw EL's response to this mess by WJM (my responses are in bold type):

William J. Murray on February 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:

This is probably essentially off-topic, but anyway:

But that won't stop you from proselytizing and being a pompous jerk, right?

For myself, and probably most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates, we lack the scientific or mathematical education/background/training to make any formal scientific arguments about ID or NDE. The best we might be able to do is recognize logical challenges/solutions/problems involved in more specifically educated arguments about ID vs NDE.

Speak for yourself and your IDiotic comrades, not "most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates".

This is why I try to keep my contributions about the logic and philosophy involved, and not interpretations of technical data. I'm not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits. I suspect most those contributing here are equally unqualified.

Suspect yourself and your IDiotic comrades. Just because you and your fellow IDiots are "not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits" doesn't mean that non-IDiots are "equally unqualified". That's one of the biggest problems with you morons. Because you're delusional, stupid, and uneducated, you think that anyone who questions or opposes you must be just as delusional, stupid, and uneducated, or more so. From your position of delusion, ignorance, and lack of education, you can't see that many people are way smarter and more educated than you, and are not delusional to boot.

Which brings me to my point: those whom I suspect are equally unqualified to parse the merits of the data often make assertions about the explanatory power of NDE theory that is well beyond their capacity to know. It's often (logically speaking) beyond the capacity of even experts in specific fields to know. Comments such as (from this thread):

There you go again suspecting something unfounded and wrong about people who are actually your intellectual superiors by miles. And, now that you made a bunch of asinine, insulting remarks in a lame attempt to discredit and diminish the intellect and knowledge of non-IDiots, you're going to get to your "point"?

I note that organisms are not optimal in their function/form ~ it is easy to make a wish list of improvements. This is to be expected in 'evolution world', but not in 'ID world'

One only knows what "optimal form" is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design.

Actually, one only knows what ANY function/form is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design. In other words, without knowing (and showing) the intent, parameters, and specifications to be met by the alleged design, you IDiots don't know squat and are just dishonestly proselytizing for your non-scientific, non-evidential, wacky religious beliefs.

For everyone else, there is a single, consistent, fully explanatory theory supported by all known observations without exception.

I doubt even the most long-tenured, multi-discipline, research-practicing evolutionary biologist could meaningfully claim this. This is obviously a statement of faith, not first-hand investigatory knowledge about "all known observations without exception".

What you doubt is irrelevant and meaningless to science and rational debate, and your absolutely moronic and desperate assertion about "first-hand investigatory knowledge" is so arrogant and stupid as to be good for nothing but laughs and mockery. No evolutionary biologist claims to have first-hand investigatory knowledge of all known observations without exception and Flint didn't claim that. Tell me, do you have "first-hand investigatory knowledge" of the alleged creation of the universe by your chosen god, or the alleged garden of eden, or the alleged talking snake, or the alleged 'flood', or the alleged ark, or the alleged conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of a guy now called jesus, or anything else in your fairy tale religious dogma?

There is no reason to suppose any teleological or supernatural forces are involved.

This in the face of hundreds of years of biology that has worked against the commonly held supposition of teleological forces involved, and is easily disputed by referring to Lewontin or many others who have written about the apparent design in nature. This is just rhetoric in the face of the history of evolutionary theory and thought.

Blah blah blah. Nothing but arrogant, twisted bullshit.

If one reads through much of the ID/NDE commentary on this site (or even on UD), from both sides there is much presentation of characterizations of ID, or of ID researchers, or of NDE, or NDE researchers, or of the state of research, or of what is known, or what has been proven or not proven, or what there is evidence of or not of, by those who really don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about when it comes to actually evaluating data on the merits oneself and not just taking someone else's word for what it means.

Look at a mirror if you want to see someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. And whose word are YOU taking for all the bullshit religious stories you believe?

Basically, the debate is 90% negative or positive characterizations & rhetoric, and maybe 10% qualified interpretation and criticism of data & the merits of an argument. So, I'd say that really, about 90% of us are, in terms of the scientific and mathematical evidence and argument, doing nothing more in that specific area of argument than cheerleading those who actually understand the science and/or the math.

There you go yet again making a lame attempt to denigrate and diminish scientists and science supporters who are vastly superior to you and the other IDiots in understanding scientific and mathematical evidence and arguments. Yeah, you don't understand squat, and you're an arrogant religious retard, and your ridiculous and insulting assertions about non-IDiots are nothing more than your lame attempt to fool yourself and others into believing that your opponents are as stupid as you are.

So the question I finally draw to is: Why have we chosen ID, or NDE, when we lack the necessary qualifications to do anything more, really, than appeal to authority when it comes to the actual science involved?

Who's "we"? Speak only for yourself and your brain-dead fellow religious zombie IDiots.

Since I obviously do not understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, I must rest my choice on other considerations, which I think is what is behind how most people make the choice between ID and NDE (or between NDE and creationism); other considerations.

Yeah, since you don't understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, you must rest your choice on the easy and delusional fairy tales of your chosen religion. Congratulations, you're an ignorant nutcase.

So, I think the best populist argument for ID, for the 90%, has nothing really to do with math or science (or even logic) that is over our head anyway, but rather the hope, meaning, purpose and value that is conferred upon life & existence under the ID paradigm that is not available under the NDE paradigm.

In other words you're a scientifically and mathematically illiterate godbot who prefers fairy tales to reality, you support and promote a dishonest Dominionist agenda, and you think that makes it okay for you to rank down science, scientists, and science supporters.

I think that it is also true that for 90% of NDE believers, that it is some populist or psychological reason that they have adopted NDE (as was historically said, Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), and attempt to characterize their belief as scientific or logical when it really is not.

How do you know that "it really is not" when you admittedly don't understand science and math? You're speaking from 100% delusion, ignorance, and arrogance.

At the end of the day, most of what either side tries to do (outside of the players educated in the particular fields) is characterize their ID or NDE belief as being based on science or logic; but when it comes down to it, that belief is really - IMO - nothing more than a reflection of what they want or need to believe anyway.

Again, speak for yourself. And what makes you think that "players educated in the particular fields" aren't involved in debates with you uneducated IDiots?

Personally, I choose to believe in god. I prefer believing in god (and yes, I've tried atheism). And unless there is some kind of logical contradiction or fact of my existence that contradicts ID, I will believe that our universe and life was designed by an intelligence. I prefer living under that paradigm.

Oh, so you've "tried atheism"? If only you knew how asinine that sounds. Live under any delusion you like but keep your insanity out of science, schools, politics, and the lives of people who don't want and don't need your religious crutch.

That doesn't mean I cannot make logical arguments for ID, or for god; nor does it mean I can't read papers and make sense out of some of the science and math; it just means that I admit my fundamental reason for belief is something other than that which I'm really not qualified to evaluate.

Actually, you god zombies are incapable of making a logical argument for ID and anything else. And yes, you're unqualified to evaluate science, math, logic, and reality, so stop telling people who are qualified to evaluate those things that they are wrong.

And I think that this is probably true for most people involved in the debate.

What you think is gibberish.

(Reply)
Elizabeth on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

That's interesting, William, thanks.

Actually, it's crap.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 24 2012,04:45

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point.  Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism.  That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID.  Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 24 2012,06:22

Gil is such a < drama queen >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

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


The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 24 2012,08:07

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,14:22)
Gil is such a < drama queen >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

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


The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not only does he have a small consequence his return is more probable than teh messiah.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 24 2012,11:51

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,04:22)
Gil is such a < drama queen >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

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


The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He uses longer words, but this is exactly like one of FTK's flounce-in / flounce-out cycles at ATBC:

Godbot: Assertion!
Critics: Evidence?
Godbot: Waah!  You are teh big meanies!
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 24 2012,13:13

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,12:22)
Gil is such a < drama queen >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

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


The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, play fair, Darwinist. He probably had a bad day and needed to flounce. It's not like he's done it befo....

< Oh.... >



Damn, such a loss to everyone to see him retreat into the sunset like that.

Oh, wait a sec....what's that, Gil? You want to < talk some more about yourself, do you? >



What a narcissistic TARD you are, Gil.

:D
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 24 2012,14:09

the butthurt oozes from that one
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 24 2012,15:16

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 24 2012,11:13)
What a narcissistic TARD you are, Gil.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have to admit though, he wears the perfect flouncing shirt.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 24 2012,15:32

I'm registered and still can't edit. I get an edit button, but it just grays the whole page.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 24 2012,15:43

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,20:58)
From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that < LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

< http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks kinda interesting...
Posted by: NormOlsen on Feb. 24 2012,17:14

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 24 2012,15:32)
I'm registered and still can't edit. I get an edit button, but it just grays the whole page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ya, the edit button is not working, neither is the full screen entry function, which was working a few days ago.  Both just produce a grey screen.
Posted by: George on Feb. 24 2012,17:43

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 24 2012,15:32)
I'm registered and still can't edit. I get an edit button, but it just grays the whole page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try right clicking and opening in a new tab.  It (sort of) worked for me.
Posted by: George on Feb. 24 2012,17:49

Ok, who else when they saw this oh-so-helpful diagram in < Gregory's guest post >



thought of the basic concepts of < Small and Far Away >?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 24 2012,21:17

i like this one

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cRrMA-M >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 25 2012,00:17

Quote (George @ Feb. 24 2012,17:49)
Ok, who else when they saw this oh-so-helpful diagram in < Gregory's guest post >



thought of the basic concepts of < Small and Far Away >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That post confused me. Is he trying to argue that we can't study culture and archaeology and such using methodological naturalism? Or am I missing something?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 25 2012,01:08

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 24 2012,11:13)
Gil is such a < drama queen >.

What a narcissistic TARD you are, Gil.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had forgotten that the frilly one was a "neighbor" of sorts.
Posted by: George on Feb. 25 2012,02:47

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2012,21:17)
i like this one

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cRrMA-M >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A classic! I remember it well. :)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 25 2012,03:16

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,05:39

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Feb. 25 2012,06:11

Gregory's OP "Why Methodological Naturalism is a Questionable Philosophy of Science" eventually < reveals > his feeble grasp of scientific terms. When Petrushka asks:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's an extra-natural thing? Can you give an example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gregory states:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Technology
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the thread, it becomes clear that Gregory thinks "natural" means "without human interference".
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2012,09:02

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
 
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,09:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
 
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge". I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four.  Thanks.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2012,09:46

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,09:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
 
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge". I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've long been an advocate of good science education.

That's not what we're discussing here.

What's at issue here is being able to make a judgment on the argumentation proffered as "intelligent design". You are claiming that one needs a scientific background to even approach evaluating it. I'm saying that's wrong. Where IDC advocates even approach science is all in the "evolution is wrong" category of argumentation, and that offers *no* support for their alternative conjecture. (As noted in Kitzmiller v. DASD, where testable claims are made, they are testable because they are about evolution, which is testable, and not about ID, which isn't.) What they do have that even approaches making a case for their alternative is all stuff that is decades, or even centuries, out of contention for making anybody even shrug about it.

This isn't an argument about the content or nature of science. The IDC advocates want to pitch it that way, but there's no good reason I know of to accommodate them.

If you want to have a rousing discussion on the merits of some particular "evolution is wrong!" argument, I'd suggest a reminder each and every time that whatever one decides about it, the outcome in no way aids a religious antievolution viewpoint. You'll probably elicit a pretty clear statement of the invalid "two-model" or "oppositional dualism" stance from a religious antievolution advocate on that point. It's good to get them on record supporting logical fallacies.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,17:33

I take your point.

I still think the notion that if something is shown to be not-quite-right that doesn't necessarily mean it is All Wrong is not intuitive.

At the very least, Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong, should be compulsory reading in all schools.[I]
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,17:34

BTW, the comment editor is broken, and everyone is waiting for an update.

There is a workaround, though, that works in Firefox at least - if you right-click on the edit link, and open in a new tab or window, you get an edit window that seems to work OK.

But I hope they will fix the pop-up window soon.  I can't find another comment editor that works.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 26 2012,01:47

What is the link to the forum? I am havind several internet problems lately. But i got a friend request
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 26 2012,02:34

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp >

ETA   clip off the ellipses after the first /wp


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 26 2012,03:25

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.

BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 26 2012,07:17

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 26 2012,11:25)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
 
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.

BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PHHHT .................BELIEF IS THAT ADAM & EVE WERE THE FIRST 2 PEOPLE ON EARTH.

ID SUPPORTERS ARE JUST STUPID .....WHICH STRANGELY ENOUGH MEANS/IS THAT THEY CAN'T LEARN, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.

ID ...IT'S LIKE OBSERVING A FREAK SHOW.

YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG BUT WHAT THE HELL, IF PEOPLE ARE PAYING MONEY TOO SEE IT, THEN THERE'S NO HARM. RIGHT?

GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE OSSIFIED INTO A GRAVEYARD OF TEH SMALL IDEAS OUTSIDE OF SOME CREEPY SMALL TOWN IN TEH CONFEDERACY SHOULDN'T WE GIVE THEM A FINAL SEND OFF......WITH COLLECTABLES?


IF THEY COME BACK YOU'LL GET YOUR GOD BACK, ALL YOUR TITHES, YOUR VIRGINITY AND YOUR PET CAT...JUST THE SAME AS IF YOU PLAYED A COUNTRY AND WESTERN RECORD BACKWARDS

AMEN
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 26 2012,07:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because it would be like a pact with the devil.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 26 2012,08:20

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 26 2012,09:25)
I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the main problem is that they already believe that God 'did it', and therefore the idea that ID could be advancing unsound arguments just does not compute.

Take Denyse O'Leary; she's your typical ID shill. Denyse already believes life was intelligently designed but she demonstrably has not the crudest understanding of the arguments of Behe or Dembski etc.

And because she does not understand the arguments for ID she does not understand the criticism being levelled against ID. And because she doesn't understand the only interpretation she can put on it is that the criticism levelled against ID arguments must therefore be politically or ideologically motivated.
Posted by: NormOlsen on Feb. 26 2012,11:39

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 26 2012,08:20)
And because she doesn't understand the only interpretation she can put on it is that the criticism levelled against ID arguments must therefore be politically or ideologically motivated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's worse than that. She is so ideologically entrenched that she can't even entertain the notion that others might not be similarly motivated. For her it's ideology all the way down.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 26 2012,15:19

I also don't think that you need a scientific education to see that ID is vacuous. Prior to Dover the commonest complaint on PT was that the MSM was too much he said-she said when they reported on ID. Once the case started this quickly changed to ridicule and now except for some Fox pundits they don't even bother reporting on it.

I come here for 2 reasons:
1. The unintended humour of the UDists and the intended humour of the ATBCers.
2. To try to understand their psychology. What goes on in their brains. Why would Gil come onto Liz's site and say that he could prove that evolution was impossible using basic probability not provide the calculation and flounce out using the insults as an excuse.

Now what are the options:
1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.
2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.
3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.

I'd be interested in Liz's opinion on she thinks happened.  For Gil I tend towards number 3. People like Joe I think tend towards number 2. That is he KNOWS that ID is correct but also know where the evidence lies. Joe thinks that for now he can confuse matters by throwing dung around and maybe one day somebody will find some evidence for ID.
Posted by: socle on Feb. 26 2012,16:22

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 26 2012,15:19)
Now what are the options:
1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.
2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.
3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can we vote too?

I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.

Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key:

1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument.

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 26 2012,16:31

Quote (socle @ Feb. 26 2012,17:22)
2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and deliciously so



that makes my innernets
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 26 2012,17:11

Quote (socle @ Feb. 27 2012,07:22)


I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.

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



Which basically says '2' as he must not be conscious of not being able to back up his claims.


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 26 2012,17:46

Quote (socle @ Feb. 26 2012,16:22)


Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key:

1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument.

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right now Lizzie's Guano page has 120 posts.

41 of those are from Joe G.

Next closest is olegt with 11.

'nuff said.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 26 2012,18:35

Well, I seem to have inadvertently deleted the entire site.

Hope to have a backup up shortly.

Yikes.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 26 2012,18:43

Whew! I was just posting a reply when it went down. I thought I broke it.

ETA: Fortunately,I've learned from experience to compose my posts in a text document, and then cut-n-paste into the post edit window.


Posted by: Febble on Feb. 26 2012,19:04

I can't believe I managed to be so stupid.  Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 26 2012,19:09

That's a pity. The forum became quite popular. But, Liz, even if much of it is gone, we will repopulate the site again.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2012,19:17

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 26 2012,19:09)
That's a pity. The forum became quite popular. But, Liz, even if much of it is gone, we will repopulate the site again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JUST LIEK TEH FLUD
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 26 2012,19:25

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 26 2012,19:04)
I can't believe I managed to be so stupid. Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. I believe you. NOT!

You are just trying to hide the simple probability calculations that Gil used to show how evolution can't create sophisticated information processing machines!  

Damn materialist!  *shakes fist*
Posted by: dhogaza on Feb. 26 2012,19:31

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 26 2012,19:04)
I can't believe I managed to be so stupid. Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, I need a sysadmin....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gil's a self-appointed software engineering genius.

Surely he can help!

(sarc off)
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 26 2012,19:43

There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....
Posted by: NormOlsen on Feb. 26 2012,20:21

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 26 2012,19:43)
There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No worries, we'll be back! :)
Posted by: Seversky on Feb. 26 2012,20:23

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 26 2012,18:35)
Well, I seem to have inadvertently deleted the entire site.

Hope to have a backup up shortly.

Yikes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean all those pearls from Gil, Joe and Greg are gone?

Well, that's...unfortunate.
:)
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 26 2012,20:50

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 27 2012,12:43)
There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it helps I have tabs still open with the front page and the Good arguments and straw men thread. They were opened not long before the crash. Nothing else, though. I've copied them to Word - let me know if you want them.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 27 2012,01:15

It appears to be back up again.   Only obvious post missing is Conch
Posted by: dvunkannon on Feb. 27 2012,12:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G:
Hi David vun Kannon,

Look if you really want to rape a chimp I will not hold it against you...

Sorry, Joe, you're not my type.

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





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David vun Kannon: Sorry, Joe, you're not my type.

Can't rape the willing anyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gaydar fail by Joe G!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 27 2012,12:45

Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 27 2012,12:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G:
Hi David vun Kannon,

Look if you really want to rape a chimp I will not hold it against you...

Sorry, Joe, you're not my type.

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



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David vun Kannon: Sorry, Joe, you're not my type.

Can't rape the willing anyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gaydar fail by Joe G!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope he's not gay. Them poor homosexualists have a hard enough time without having Joe on their books..
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 27 2012,13:57

Man...was I born under a bad sign or something? I posted at TSZ about 5 minutes ago and now the site is gone. What gives?
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 27 2012,14:45

I don't know,  I don't think it was my fault this time. I've put in a support request.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 27 2012,14:46

TSZ still down as of 12:45 PM PST

"Error loading page. Please contact the support team. "
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 27 2012,15:08

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 27 2012,14:45)
I don't know, I don't think it was my fault this time. I've put in a support request.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure it's not you, Lizzie. Possibly the site reacted badly to the crankiness I felt...

 ;)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2012,16:47

Mop up of JoeG bullshit on aisle 5.

Keep that shit on the Tardgasm thread.

< Religious Vomit >


Posted by: Febble on Feb. 27 2012,17:40

There was a rogue plug in that I have now deactivated.  Sorry about that!

I'm going to keep things simple for a bit.

Also I've now, thanks to aiguy who sent me the lost texts, restored the Conching thread.

Any aisle-mopping will have to wait until tomorrow evening.

Cheers guys :)
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 01 2012,11:32

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 01 2012,11:41

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too much CSI?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 01 2012,12:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 01 2012,11:41)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too much CSI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps the Evolutionary Atheist Conspiracy had the site deleted because Joe was getting too close to disproving Darwinism.

Edit: to/too/two. whatever!


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,13:17

Connectivity to TSV up and down today. :-(
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 04 2012,13:55

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 04 2012,13:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2012,13:17)
Connectivity to TSV up and down today. :-(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've sent in a ticket.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 04 2012,13:56

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 04 2012,13:55)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thought.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,13:58

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 04 2012,13:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 04 2012,13:55)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And probably also multiple guano ones.

Minor navigation thought - it can be hard to go back and see precisely what people have said with the 'previous / next' set up.

But keep up the good work!
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 04 2012,14:00

The hosting service doesn't think so, but I've closed the Holding Tank thread anyway.

I think it had run its course :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,14:03

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 04 2012,14:00)
The hosting service doesn't think so, but I've closed the Holding Tank thread anyway.

I think it had run its course :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess. Joe can always further develop his ideas on his blog, or maybe one day in code. All revolutionary ideas get scoffed at in the beginning.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 04 2012,16:06

I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. Otherwise, TSZ will be in perpetual derail until he finds somewhere else to irritate, in clueless ignorance of his own cluelessness.

But for the fact that I can't imagine anyone getting pleasure from such an activity, I'd say he is simply trolling for the attention. Then again, I thought that about Doug Dobney at Sandwalk too - when Larry was away, a 550-post megathread blew up, and he seemed to be just orchestrating the pro-science side into a frenzy for kicks. But I began to realise that he was deadly serious. And then I felt quite sorry for him.

Either way, if one has an interest in internet discussion, someone being ridiculous right in front of you, with those tiresome refrains and persistent misapprehension in response, is a hard lure to ignore. I decided to say nothing more to that fuckwit a long time back, but I haven't kept the promise entirely.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,17:12

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 04 2012,16:06)
I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. Otherwise, TSZ will be in perpetual derail until he finds somewhere else to irritate, in clueless ignorance of his own cluelessness.

But for the fact that I can't imagine anyone getting pleasure from such an activity, I'd say he is simply trolling for the attention. Then again, I thought that about Doug Dobney at Sandwalk too - when Larry was away, a 550-post megathread blew up, and he seemed to be just orchestrating the pro-science side into a frenzy for kicks. But I began to realise that he was deadly serious. And then I felt quite sorry for him.

Either way, if one has an interest in internet discussion, someone being ridiculous right in front of you, with those tiresome refrains and persistent misapprehension in response, is a hard lure to ignore. I decided to say nothing more to that fuckwit a long time back, but I haven't kept the promise entirely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's on every thread hardcore right now.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 04 2012,17:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2012,17:12)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 04 2012,16:06)
I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's on every thread hardcore right now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like getting fucking termites!
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 04 2012,18:12

Laugh out load moment (for me, anyway). Joe has another thread, this time on how Tiktaalik is somehow not a transitional. Bearing in mind a previous comment Joe is on his bestest behaviour, even prompting < this >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far three evos have responded and not one has demonstrated a reading of the OP.

Still staring at me Elizabeth?

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


However 9 comments later the < dam bursts >:
 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich:
Joe, I'm trying to talk specifics with you. please humour me. I wouldn't want readers to think you're being evasive, by asserting and not supporting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please read and respond to the OP- or go away

Elizabeth- Rich is being a fucking faggot- can you please do something about him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and you all know where it goes from there.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 04 2012,18:28

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 04 2012,16:12)
Laugh out load moment (for me, anyway). Joe has another thread, this time on how Tiktaalik is somehow not a transitional. Bearing in mind a previous comment Joe is on his bestest behaviour, even prompting < this >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far three evos have responded and not one has demonstrated a reading of the OP.

Still staring at me Elizabeth?

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


However 9 comments later the < dam bursts >:
 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich:
Joe, I'm trying to talk specifics with you. please humour me. I wouldn't want readers to think you're being evasive, by asserting and not supporting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please read and respond to the OP- or go away

Elizabeth- Rich is being a fucking faggot- can you please do something about him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and you all know where it goes from there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And of course joe will claim that he's just responding to attacks on him.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 04 2012,18:32

There's a really nice post by Joe Felsenstein up.
Posted by: paragwinn on Mar. 05 2012,03:32

From < "Tiktaalik", Why it is a failed Prediction >, a snippet of 'Joevolutionary Theory':

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There isn't anything in [standard evolutionary] theory that says a transitional form will be around millions of years after the transition was made- you don't have any idea how evolution works
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Those who think they know Joevolutionary Theory don't know Joevolutionary Theory, they only know evotardism." - Feynard Richman, home healthcare worker
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 05 2012,04:58

Quote (paragwinn @ Mar. 05 2012,01:32)
From < "Tiktaalik", Why it is a failed Prediction >, a snippet of 'Joevolutionary Theory':  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There isn't anything in [standard evolutionary] theory that says a transitional form will be around millions of years after the transition was made- you don't have any idea how evolution works
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Those who think they know Joevolutionary Theory don't know Joevolutionary Theory, they only know evotardism." - Feynard Richman, home healthcare worker
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, that's some major league tard that joe is spewing there. That guy is one tardtastic IDiot.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 05 2012,12:42

I've restricted posting to registered logged-in users, and I've installed a plug in to allow me to place individual users in moderation.

If I have to move one more comment from Joe G to guano I will put him in moderation.  Other posters are well below my last-straw threshold.

I will still post all comments, but game-rule-violating comments will go straight to guano.  I hope that will improve the SNR in the threads.

Joe G, I'm posting this in a number of places where you read so that you know.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2012,12:52

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 05 2012,12:42)
I've restricted posting to registered logged-in users, and I've installed a plug in to allow me to place individual users in moderation.

If I have to move one more comment from Joe G to guano I will put him in moderation. Other posters are well below my last-straw threshold.

I will still post all comments, but game-rule-violating comments will go straight to guano. I hope that will improve the SNR in the threads.

Joe G, I'm posting this in a number of places where you read so that you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was always going to happen. Just be prepared for faux martyrdom.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 05 2012,12:59

That's OK.  As I said, there will be no censorship, everything will be posted, it's just that I'd rather move stuff before it hits the thread, not after.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 05 2012,13:11

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 04 2012,16:06)
I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. Otherwise, TSZ will be in perpetual derail until he finds somewhere else to irritate, in clueless ignorance of his own cluelessness.

But for the fact that I can't imagine anyone getting pleasure from such an activity, I'd say he is simply trolling for the attention. Then again, I thought that about Doug Dobney at Sandwalk too - when Larry was away, a 550-post megathread blew up, and he seemed to be just orchestrating the pro-science side into a frenzy for kicks. But I began to realise that he was deadly serious. And then I felt quite sorry for him.

Either way, if one has an interest in internet discussion, someone being ridiculous right in front of you, with those tiresome refrains and persistent misapprehension in response, is a hard lure to ignore. I decided to say nothing more to that fuckwit a long time back, but I haven't kept the promise entirely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I banned Joe from my blog almost 9 months ago.  He still tries to get comments through.  He has more comments on my blog than I have posts on my blog.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2012,13:43

Well, he got Guanoed again. I wonder if he's moderated now?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 05 2012,13:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 05 2012,13:43)
Well, he got Guanoed again. I wonder if he's moderated now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The idea of Joe cleaning up his act to stay out of moderation immediately reminded me of this:


Posted by: eigenstate on Mar. 05 2012,14:33

Too bad for Elizabeth, and the TSZ. I don't know how you guys do it, Joe's trolling is just WAY too damn fatiguing and boring to deal with.

Really, life is to short to live as troll fodder for Joe.

And that's what TSZ has become, now. It's Joe's forum, now.

I wanted to post on the GA thread -- I am one who has invested, personally, several person-years, and many more person-years have been put in by my team, on commercial applications of genetic algorithms. It's an interesting, underdeveloped topic.

But I'd be a fool to waste my time on that thread.

Joe has the upper hand, at this point. The advantage goes to the troll in these situations. It takes a collective commitment to not feed the troll to stem the problem, and Joe's a very capable troll.

I thought Felsenstein's post was good, but what's the point? As soon as any attention gets invested in it, Joe just moves over there, and the post is nullified.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 05 2012,14:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 05 2012,14:43)
Well, he got Guanoed again. I wonder if he's moderated now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if his boyfriend Barry has been watching

And Mr Leathers!!!!!! <gasp>

What would Gordon say?  *you have been warned Joseph*

ROFLMAO

I still hope there was a bigger purpose for letting that idiot loose there!  Like, "On tard and tardmongers:  insights into the psychology of a tard" or some shit like that.  Because if not then jesus that shit was inevitable
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 05 2012,14:40

and

OM, OA, Rich, whoever else, you guys are bloody hilarious


Posted by: Febble on Mar. 05 2012,14:43

I'd be delighted if someone would like to post a new GA post.

Joe is now in moderation.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2012,15:24

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 05 2012,14:43)
I'd be delighted if someone would like to post a new GA post.

Joe is now in moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anything specific? GA primers, or 'can they create information', or 'are they front loaded' or...?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2012,15:39

Quote (eigenstate @ Mar. 05 2012,14:33)
Too bad for Elizabeth, and the TSZ. I don't know how you guys do it, Joe's trolling is just WAY too damn fatiguing and boring to deal with.

Really, life is to short to live as troll fodder for Joe.

And that's what TSZ has become, now. It's Joe's forum, now.

I wanted to post on the GA thread -- I am one who has invested, personally, several person-years, and many more person-years have been put in by my team, on commercial applications of genetic algorithms. It's an interesting, underdeveloped topic.

But I'd be a fool to waste my time on that thread.

Joe has the upper hand, at this point. The advantage goes to the troll in these situations. It takes a collective commitment to not feed the troll to stem the problem, and Joe's a very capable troll.

I thought Felsenstein's post was good, but what's the point? As soon as any attention gets invested in it, Joe just moves over there, and the post is nullified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure I can keep him bogged down in his own thread, now I've got him attributing things to Schubin that he's never said.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 05 2012,15:45

Struggling with the wretched plug-in!

I guess I'll figure it out....
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 05 2012,15:52

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 05 2012,14:43)
I'd be delighted if someone would like to post a new GA post.

Joe is now in moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could expand this one if you like: < http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011....help-id >

Or you can just use it.  I think Joe complained that I didn't know what front-loading was... of course he called me too stupid to understand the real answer.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 05 2012,15:59

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 05 2012,13:52)
I think Joe complained that I didn't know what front-loading was... of course he called me too stupid to understand the real answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's all?  No reference to bottoms, coprophagy or penis size?  He likes you, Ogre!
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 05 2012,16:16

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 05 2012,14:43)
I'd be delighted if someone would like to post a new GA post.

Joe is now in moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Discussing < this > perhaps? A simple GA mimicking evolution of an 'engineering' solution ... - complex and nothing 'smuggled-in', other than a means of distinguishing 'better' from 'worse' according to the function being selected for (counting out time).

(If I were attempting to persuade ID-ers with it, I would be for editing some of the text with which the simulation is introduced - guaranteed to alienate the target audience with haughty tone!).
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 05 2012,16:34

Uh-oh - < Elizabeth >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, it looks like the WP plug-in writers hadn't envisaged that blog-owners might grant posting rights to people whose comments they might want to moderate, so it's possible that your posts on your own threads may escape my eagle eye.

So I shall have to call on your better nature, Joe G.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Febble on Mar. 05 2012,16:38

It's OK, I think it just applies to his own threads.  I'll draw the Tiktaalik one to a close shortly.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 05 2012,22:59

Tiktaalik? That guy was rather fishy for a frog! :p

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2012,22:05

Looks like with its instant comment promotion, no moderation for adults and respect for both viewpoints, TSZ is killing UD. Shame on you UD, look at what you could have been if you weren't a propaganda machine. Might as well put in for that DI sponsorship now...
Posted by: socle on Mar. 07 2012,14:35

< William J. Murray: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, when you guys reference the supposedly vast amount of evidence contained in those papers, how many of them have you read? All of them that you are referring to - meaning, all of them, or else how would you know they all agree with NDE, or your particular understanding of it? Have you read "most" of the papers ever published relating to evolutionary biology? Dating back to when?

Careful how you answer, because then the question becomes: why this apparently obsessive compulsion to educate yourself so thoroughly in fields outside of your expertise so that you can independently evaluate research data about NDE? Why is it so important to you?


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



So if you haven't read "most" of the papers relating to evolutionary biology, you are unqualified to participate in a discussion of the science (as WJM admits to being). If you have read the evolutionary biology literature extensively, then that is evidence of an "obsessive compulsion". Brilliant!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2012,16:37

It's "viewpoint equivalence" evolved into "ignorance equivalence"

Teach the no-one understands controversy!
Posted by: eigenstate on Mar. 07 2012,18:46

So, I just posted at TSZ, on a thread started by WJM. It didn't immediately show up. Are TSZ posts all moderated, now, or is this up to the thread owner?

I'm registered there, etc. I recall the posting being "immediate" which is cool.

Did this change, anyone know?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 07 2012,19:11

Yes, it changed due to you know who. First posts are moderated. After that it should go smoothly.

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....0 >
Posted by: raguel on Mar. 07 2012,21:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2012,16:37)
It's "viewpoint equivalence" evolved into "ignorance equivalence"

Teach the no-one understands controversy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read that, possibly less charitably, as  he doesn't understand how some people find science interesting. It's funny that now that I'm out of college I read more science article than I ever did when I was earning my degree.  (and most of it is on biology, which I found to be dull in high school and in college)


It's a pretty jaw-dropping quote, at any rate.
Posted by: eigenstate on Mar. 07 2012,22:03

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2012,19:11)
Yes, it changed due to you know who. First posts are moderated. After that it should go smoothly.

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....0....wp....0 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK thanks.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 08 2012,05:34

Let me know here if you have any problems.

I'm sorry it's not as easy to post as it was, but there are already benefits, I think.

ETA: I will release everything except spam, but some things may be sent directly to guano.  So, still no censorship, but some control over the rate and direction of flow :)


Posted by: Robin on Mar. 08 2012,08:32

Hmmm...I registered an account since I've not done so since the change, and I tried to change my profile picture. No dice. Any hints about how to do that? I selected a .jpg, sized it, and hit save, but the default illustration was not replaced.
Posted by: NormOlsen on Mar. 08 2012,10:11

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 08 2012,08:32)
Hmmm...I registered an account since I've not done so since the change, and I tried to change my profile picture. No dice. Any hints about how to do that? I selected a .jpg, sized it, and hit save, but the default illustration was not replaced.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had the same problem; tried several times but nothing showed up so I gave up and closed the browser.  Later when I went to try again, there on my profile was the photo that I thought had failed to load.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 08 2012,19:29



GIGO

Find it on the BW.


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 09 2012,01:39

I noticed that TSZ tries to plant LSO (= Flash) cookies. Of course my browser plug-in catches them, I am just wondering why these cookies are necessary.

Otherwise, a great blog - congratz!
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 10 2012,08:24

For whatever reason, my comment in WJM's thread was marked for moderation after I edited it. Bug?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 10 2012,11:29

Looks like Joe's given up on TSZ but is posting his own devastating critique on Joenetic Algorithms on his popular blog.
Posted by: Seversky on Mar. 12 2012,19:24

What's up with TSZ?  Anyone else having problems getting in?
Posted by: NormOlsen on Mar. 12 2012,20:49

Quote (Seversky @ Mar. 12 2012,19:24)
What's up with TSZ? Anyone else having problems getting in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, intermittently I get "page not found" errors.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 13 2012,03:37

I'm trying to fix these technical things, but I'm no expert at the back end of servers.  If anyone is, and would like to volunteer as sysadmin I'd be grateful!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 13 2012,10:36

Does increasing CSI inrease William J Murray's pissyness?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 14 2012,06:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2012,10:36)
Does increasing CSI inrease William J Murray's pissyness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he was chocolate, he'd < eat himself >!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, here's the point: unless you can show NS to select more for increased CSI than against increased CSI, you have no basis for the claim that NS adds anything to the search for increased CSI.

OMG, that is such a sweet argument. Short, concise, and perfect. This is why I take the time and effort in forums like this.

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



(It's a piss-poor argument, crying out for the biological understanding that WJM considers superfluous to the discussion (he's got logic an' stuff), but I haven't the energy to dissect it!)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 14 2012,14:23

Genius:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of this reminds me of the joke that charisma is that indefinable, ineffable quality that girls with big jugs have. Or in this case, CSI is that incalculable property possessed only by objects we already decided were Designed.


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


Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 14 2012,19:30

< Strange bedfellows >: (WJM, to Joe)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a waste of time if you're trying to get them to understand. It's not a waste of time if it's the most effective way of killing time during slow periods at work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He toys with us, for funzies. Good job we'd never stoop so low.
Posted by: Leftfield on Mar. 14 2012,21:02

Another reason not to bother trying to convince WJM of anything based on science:

< Link >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I dont believe in things because evidence or argument compels me to; I believe in them because I choose to.

Some of my beliefs I can make logical and/or evidential arguments for; others, I cannot, but my belief in any of them is not predicated upon being able to make such arguments. I believe what I choose; not what I must. I choose to believe in ID; I choose to believe in God, and II choose to believe in a universal, objective good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2012,21:26

fuck at least he is honest

not that bright though.  to hell with the law of noncontradiction, if that's the way you roll you don't have common ground with reality much less predicates and syntax


Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 15 2012,02:08

Sigh. Another moderation queue. Yesterday I made my first comment (as DiEb), now I'm waiting for it to appear at Creating CSI with NS. Unfortunately, there isn't even a notice (your comment is awaiting moderation), so I don't know whether commenting worked at all...
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 15 2012,04:19

I can't see your comment either - must have failed to upload I think.

There's nothing in the moderation queue, nor the spam filter.

Can you try again?

I'm sorry the software is glitchy. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to optimise it. I'll gradually try and fix the glitches, but each new fix seems to come with another downside.

ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.


Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 15 2012,05:14

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 15 2012,10:19)
I can't see your comment either - must have failed to upload I think.

There's nothing in the moderation queue, nor the spam filter.

Can you try again?

I'm sorry the software is glitchy. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to optimise it. I'll gradually try and fix the glitches, but each new fix seems to come with another downside.

ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks, and thanks for looking! It's absolutely possible that I botched it...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you try again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I haven't saved my comment. What a pity: it was the one last edit to end all editing, the one comment which made all further comments superfluous. But let bygones be bygones - I'll mumble on in my usual manner :-)
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 15 2012,06:13

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 15 2012,03:14)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 15 2012,10:19)
I can't see your comment either - must have failed to upload I think.

There's nothing in the moderation queue, nor the spam filter.

Can you try again?

I'm sorry the software is glitchy. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to optimise it. I'll gradually try and fix the glitches, but each new fix seems to come with another downside.

ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks, and thanks for looking! It's absolutely possible that I botched it...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you try again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I haven't saved my comment. What a pity: it was the one last edit to end all editing, the one comment which made all further comments superfluous. But let bygones be bygones - I'll mumble on in my usual manner :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want to look at < this >.
Posted by: damitall on Mar. 15 2012,06:42

Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 15 2012,06:48

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 15 2012,14:42)
Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well who's left?

Teh Frill, Barry, the other blind mullets and sox^^150.

I hope Lizzy sticks here arm down the S bend and pulls KF out and hangs him out to dry.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 15 2012,06:50

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 15 2012,04:42)
Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A spam trap is a fitting place for gordo.  :D
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 15 2012,07:12

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 15 2012,06:42)
Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, I guess he figured out that the increase in the ratio of views to comments over at UD had more to do with the denominator than the numerator.   He may not be smart, but he sure is slow.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 15 2012,07:15


Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 15 2012,07:45

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 15 2012,06:42)
Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She did set it free but doesn't know where it was.
See this comment and the next one.

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....n....nt-8099 >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 15 2012,08:34

Joetard saying "we" again on the "Creating CSI with NS" thread of gold

Quote (Captain Guano @ March 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm)
Well that is how science operates- we observe some result and try to explain it- what it is, what it does and how it came to be the way it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he definitely cupping someone else's balls while he be talkin
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 15 2012,11:01

Joe is bringing KF aka GEM aka Gordon E Mullings aka "repeatdely 'stumbles upon' and consumes porn" up to speed at UD.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 15 2012,11:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2012,11:01)
Joe is bringing KF aka GEM aka Gordon E Mullings aka "repeatdely 'stumbles upon' and consumes porn" up to speed at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) I DO NOT want to know their bedroom antics.

2) How in the hell do you know about their bedroom antics...

no don't answer that.  I don't want to know that either.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 15 2012,11:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2012,11:01)
Joe is bringing KF aka GEM aka Gordon E Mullings aka "repeatdely 'stumbles upon' and consumes porn" up to speed at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, two questions come to mind:

1.  Will Mullings actually venture out from behind Barry's skirt and appear at TSZ?

2. If he does,  how long will it take for him to complain about the poisonous atmosphere and incivility, demand an apology, and scurry back to the safer confines of UD?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 15 2012,11:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 15 2012,12:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2012,11:01)
Joe is bringing KF aka GEM aka Gordon E Mullings aka "repeatdely 'stumbles upon' and consumes porn" up to speed at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) I DO NOT want to know their bedroom antics.

2) How in the hell do you know about their bedroom antics...

no don't answer that. I don't want to know that either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rich is KF i thought you knew.  fucking brilliant sock
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 16 2012,07:03

KF is trying to proof Elizabeth Liddle wrong - by < posting his comments over at UD >.

I haven't yet decided if he is a coward, a weirdo, or both.

Link points to TSZ, of course. :p
Posted by: REC on Mar. 16 2012,11:28

William J. Murray wins my too-honest comment award:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ultimately, science doesn't resolve anything anyway, IMO. ... I think there are very few ID proponents that would disagree with me on that one. Ultimately, what resolves things - towards any conclusion - is one's deep worldview, not data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think for him, and ID proponents, this is the truth.

< Link >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 16 2012,11:55

i love postmodern fundies
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 16 2012,12:29

Quote (REC @ Mar. 16 2012,11:28)
William J. Murray wins my too-honest comment award:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ultimately, science doesn't resolve anything anyway, IMO. ... I think there are very few ID proponents that would disagree with me on that one. Ultimately, what resolves things - towards any conclusion - is one's deep worldview, not data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think for him, and ID proponents, this is the truth.

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


Thank heavens that the deep worldview of the cancer specialists that saved my friend's life was oriented in the direction of 'stuff-that-seems-to-work'. I bet they had a peek at some data, too.
Posted by: damitall on Mar. 16 2012,13:00

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 16 2012,07:03)
KF is trying to proof Elizabeth Liddle wrong - by < posting his comments over at UD >.

I haven't yet decided if he is a coward, a weirdo, or both.

Link points to TSZ, of course. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's both, of course - but I think he's probably trying to lure a fresh drawerful of socks over there to liven the place up a bit.
But we remain in an attitude of hostile (and amused) observation!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2012,23:46

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the odious fuckwitt, < William J Murray >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2012,23:56

Bonus:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....related >

Giving him a forum was an interesting experiment, but I hope Joe and him are done posting.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 18 2012,00:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2012,23:56)
Bonus:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....related >

Giving him a forum was an interesting experiment, but I hope Joe and him are done posting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"rayshists" ... "cast dispersions"

Wow.

I already thought he was incoherent in his posts.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 18 2012,03:33

Moderator at 3:07:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We live in a pluralistic society, we have Christians, we have Catholics, we have Muslims, we have Jewish people, ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Raevmo on Mar. 18 2012,04:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2012,23:46)
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the odious fuckwitt, < William J Murray >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's not that William J Murray, it's < this one >.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 18 2012,05:00

Actually, it's this one:

< http://www.amazon.com/Anarchi....9500824 >
Posted by: Raevmo on Mar. 18 2012,06:11

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 18 2012,05:00)
Actually, it's this one:

< http://www.amazon.com/Anarchi....9500824 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a different one? Is there a way on Amazon.com to tell apart different authors by the same name?
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 18 2012,08:30

< He is a New Age type >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I don't know which book you ordered, but they don't equally examine the views I express here. < Anarchic Harmony > is more of a 100-page anti-authority, anti-convention rant than anything else, but I've always been fond of < Robert Anton Wilson >'s introduction. < Unconditional Freedom > is a more in-depth explanation of my views. Please keep in mind that I wrote both of those about 20 years ago, so my views have changed and developed over that time.

Both of those books are now out of print and are now only available via the second-hand market. For something more current, you might try "< Instant Enlightenment >", available as a digital download from Lulu.com. Cheap, at $2.50, and brief (as the term "instant" indicates) at 40 pages. But, I don't get into any "explanation" in IE; it's more of just a how-to book.

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 18 2012,08:57

so are these dicks all the same dick?

i am having a bit of trouble connecting the moonbat yammering about rayhsists to the moonbat yammering about his "i choose to believe it so it is true" christian castaneda-ism at TSZ

i am fairly sure that the cat who wrote the book on divegrass is neither one of these shitstains but i tell you what that is a shitty toupee on the y00t00b
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 18 2012,09:16

At least he warns us against being arrogant.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Mar. 18 2012,19:37

"Anarchic Harmony: The Spirituality of Social Disobedience [Paperback]
William J. Murray (Author)

13 used from $0.36"

A bit steep, that. I think I'll pass.
Posted by: NormOlsen on Mar. 19 2012,10:26

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 18 2012,08:30)
< He is a New Age type >.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I don't know which book you ordered, but they don't equally examine the views I express here. < Anarchic Harmony > is more of a 100-page anti-authority, anti-convention rant than anything else, but I've always been fond of < Robert Anton Wilson >'s introduction. < Unconditional Freedom > is a more in-depth explanation of my views. Please keep in mind that I wrote both of those about 20 years ago, so my views have changed and developed over that time.

Both of those books are now out of print and are now only available via the second-hand market. For something more current, you might try "< Instant Enlightenment >", available as a digital download from Lulu.com. Cheap, at $2.50, and brief (as the term "instant" indicates) at 40 pages. But, I don't get into any "explanation" in IE; it's more of just a how-to book.

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


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


I think they prefer the term "New Age Baramin".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 19 2012,14:10

On TSZ Joe is currently sharing his wisdom.

Elizabeth, on a single page Joe has used both barrels of the single gun he has.

1: A "totally different type of biology"
2: It's the origin of CSI that matters!

These two points seem to be at the core of his argument, such as it is. He's been using them for years.

The first point is a reference to something Dawkins has said. And it seems because Dawkins said it Joe can use it over and over, immune to any counter argument. As can be seen on the thread currently. < http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....nt-8740 >
You've already asked him why it matters, but you won't get an answer.

I think it's probably worth pressing Joe on the "origin" issue some more, the quote from Dembski a couple of pages back has it.

So Joe fixates on some quote and it becomes part of his routine. You'll never "unlearn" it from him.

Or will you....
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 21 2012,09:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /wp/wp-comments-post.php on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I haven't seen any new comments since this started.
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 22 2012,20:29

Hi Liz,

Could you grant me posting privileges at TSZ?

Thanks.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 22 2012,23:42

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 22 2012,20:29)
Hi Liz,

Could you grant me posting privileges at TSZ?

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do it for the bananas and the ravens!
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 23 2012,09:52

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 22 2012,20:29)
Hi Liz,

Could you grant me posting privileges at TSZ?

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done.
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 23 2012,20:05

Thanks, Liz.

For the curious, Richard is referring to < the one time I defended something that David Coppedge said >, a discussion that went on for days and involved bananas, ravens, and Richard's, um, predilections...

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2009,11:26)
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 17 2009,16:32)
Of course, if N is large - and it is very large - observing a yellow banana has almost no effect at all on our posterior
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speak for yourself. Richardthughes feels a tingling in his posterior when he sees a yellow banana, particularly if it is large.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 23 2012,23:14

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 23 2012,20:05)
Thanks, Liz.

For the curious, Richard is referring to < the one time I defended something that David Coppedge said >, a discussion that went on for days and involved bananas, ravens, and Richard's, um, predilections...

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2009,11:26)
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 17 2009,16:32)
Of course, if N is large - and it is very large - observing a yellow banana has almost no effect at all on our posterior
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speak for yourself. Richardthughes feels a tingling in his posterior when he sees a yellow banana, particularly if it is large.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


To be fair, that's the gerbil thinking it's going to be fed.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 24 2012,07:10

Liz,

I am experiencing a technical problem with comments. For example, WordPress won't let me post this fairly innocuous reply on the thread about the 2nd law. I preserve the WordPress formatting.


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

I'd like to discuss this excerpt from Sewell's ENV piece:
<blockquote>There are some problems, however. While one can certainly define a "poker entropy" as S_p = k_p log (W) and have a nice formula for entropy which increases when probability increases, why should the constant k_p used be equal to the Boltzmann constant k_B? In fact, it is not clear why poker entropy should have units of Joules/degree Kelvin. In the case of thermal entropy, the constant is chosen so that the statistical definition of thermal entropy agrees with the standard macroscopic definition. But there is no standard definition for poker entropy to match, so the constant k_p can be chosen arbitrarily. If we do arbitrarily set k_p = k_B, so that the units match, <strong>it still does not make any sense to add poker entropy and thermal entropy changes to see if the result is positive or not. It is not clear how the fact that thermal entropy is increasing in the rest of the universe makes it easier to get a highly improbable poker hand.</strong> Of course, all these problems also exist with respect to Styer and Bunn's analyses of the entropy associated with evolution; at least with poker entropy we don't have to take wild guesses at the probabilities involved.
</blockquote>
The confusion over the units, while funny, is a minor problem. It's the highlighted two sentences that are most interesting.

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



On a related note, could you add a thread opening privilege for me as well?
Posted by: NormOlsen on Mar. 24 2012,10:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2012,23:14)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 23 2012,20:05)
Thanks, Liz.

For the curious, Richard is referring to < the one time I defended something that David Coppedge said >, a discussion that went on for days and involved bananas, ravens, and Richard's, um, predilections...

 
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2009,11:26)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 17 2009,16:32)
Of course, if N is large - and it is very large - observing a yellow banana has almost no effect at all on our posterior
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speak for yourself. Richardthughes feels a tingling in his posterior when he sees a yellow banana, particularly if it is large.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


To be fair, that's the gerbil thinking it's going to be fed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2012,11:03

Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,11:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2012,23:14)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 23 2012,20:05)
Thanks, Liz.

For the curious, Richard is referring to < the one time I defended something that David Coppedge said >, a discussion that went on for days and involved bananas, ravens, and Richard's, um, predilections...

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2009,11:26)
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 17 2009,16:32)
Of course, if N is large - and it is very large - observing a yellow banana has almost no effect at all on our posterior
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speak for yourself. Richardthughes feels a tingling in his posterior when he sees a yellow banana, particularly if it is large.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


To be fair, that's the gerbil thinking it's going to be fed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i love those posts they make me lolroftlmaowtfbbq
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 24 2012,12:31

< My favorite Richtard comment from that thread >:
Quote (RichardtHughes @ Oct. 19 2009,07:55)
There once was a homo called Keiths
Who had strange posterior beliefs
Ravens, Bananas,
Crammed up his pyjamas
to ascertain whether Hempel's paradox expressed as a hypothesis is a true representation of inductive logic for a finite set of entities working under other a priori assumptions such as the uniformity of nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Febble on Mar. 24 2012,15:15

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 24 2012,07:10)
Liz,

I am experiencing a technical problem with comments. For example, WordPress won't let me post this fairly innocuous reply on the thread about the 2nd law. I preserve the WordPress formatting.
 

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

I'd like to discuss this excerpt from Sewell's ENV piece:
<blockquote>There are some problems, however. While one can certainly define a "poker entropy" as S_p = k_p log (W) and have a nice formula for entropy which increases when probability increases, why should the constant k_p used be equal to the Boltzmann constant k_B? In fact, it is not clear why poker entropy should have units of Joules/degree Kelvin. In the case of thermal entropy, the constant is chosen so that the statistical definition of thermal entropy agrees with the standard macroscopic definition. But there is no standard definition for poker entropy to match, so the constant k_p can be chosen arbitrarily. If we do arbitrarily set k_p = k_B, so that the units match, <strong>it still does not make any sense to add poker entropy and thermal entropy changes to see if the result is positive or not. It is not clear how the fact that thermal entropy is increasing in the rest of the universe makes it easier to get a highly improbable poker hand.</strong> Of course, all these problems also exist with respect to Styer and Bunn's analyses of the entropy associated with evolution; at least with poker entropy we don't have to take wild guesses at the probabilities involved.
</blockquote>
The confusion over the units, while funny, is a minor problem. It's the highlighted two sentences that are most interesting.

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



On a related note, could you add a thread opening privilege for me as well?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done.

I still haven't got to the bottom of WordPress logic regarding holding posts for moderation.

But I do check in pretty regularly, and release the hostages asap.

The system does allow control over the flow of Joe G posts, so I'm inclined to put up with it for now.

ETA: I inserted the text of your post above into your "test" post:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....nt-8988 >

which neatly allowed me to preserve your authorship :)


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2012,16:57

Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,10:42)
*snip*


You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Siri, take NormOlson off my Christmas card list and mail him a dog turd.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2012,17:00

Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,10:42)
*snip*

You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Siri, take NormOlsen off my Christmas card list and mail him a dog turd.

Edited to spell name right.


Posted by: rhmc on Mar. 24 2012,17:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2012,18:00)
Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,10:42)
*snip*

You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Siri, take NormOlsen off my Christmas card list and mail him a dog turd.

Edited to spell name right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol?
Posted by: NormOlsen on Mar. 24 2012,18:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2012,17:00)
Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,10:42)
*snip*

You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Siri, take NormOlsen off my Christmas card list and mail him a dog turd.

Edited to spell name right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From now on I will call you "rock god", OK?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2012,19:05

Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,18:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2012,17:00)
Quote (NormOlsen @ Mar. 24 2012,10:42)
*snip*

You know those pointless forum posts, where somebody, apparently with nothing better to do and having nothing of any real substance to say, simply comments about the hilarity of somebody else's witticism, saying something like "LOL" or even "ROTFL" or possibly even something about cleaning off the spray from their computer monitor?

This is one of those posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Siri, take NormOlsen off my Christmas card list and mail him a dog turd.

Edited to spell name right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From now on I will call you "rock god", OK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 28 2012,07:07

Joe's sandbox seems to have disappeared from the list of threads.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 28 2012,07:54

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 28 2012,07:07)
Joe's sandbox seems to have disappeared from the list of threads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's been turned into a permanent page and got its own link on top of the homepage.

Edited for slightly better grammar.


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 14 2012,17:33

A little dissapointed with Lizzie.

Reproduced here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich on April 14, 2012 at 11:27 pm said:
I see my post asking Sal about Darwins puppy beating has been moved to Guano and I take great exception to this. Sal has the audacity to to post about Rotteness (sic) in Creationism and yet for many he exemplifies this. Whilst this may be regarded ad ad hominem, we are talking about character and integrity.

Please review:

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....ies.php >

and

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....sty.php >

So Id like an answer, what are Sals current views on Darwin beating puppies? If youre going to post on rottenness in creationism, your record is fair game.


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


Posted by: utidjian on April 15 2012,13:27

Is there some sort of internationally (or even AtBC_ally) recognized award for public display of herculean patience? If so... Leviathan gets it for the Airfoil Myth replies to Sal Cordova.

-DU-
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 15 2012,15:45

This is why it is folly to give odious douche-bag Sal Cordova a forum:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y205132 >
Posted by: paragwinn on April 15 2012,20:43

Where Sal slithers in, < Robert Byers cant be far behind: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Modern Creationism has become very effective and famous and progressively taking down the old strongholds of evolutionary error or anything denying the fingerprints of God in nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now if that aint evidence for a multiverse, i dont know what is. Could Byers' presence on Earth be ambassadorial in nature?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 20 2012,09:42

William J Murray and Sal Cordova are certainly adding a certain flavour to TsZ.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 20 2012,10:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2012,09:42)
William J Murray and Sal Cordova are certainly adding a certain flavour to TsZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Give them credit for being ID's best and brightest.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 24 2012,06:05

< Meanwhile, at the ranch: > Natural Selection - What is it and what does it do?, a copypasta from Joe's blog.
He must have got back his posting privilege < after whining >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
21 posts in moderation- how many can it hold?

I beseech you, let my posts go!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not so long ago, he < sounded a little bit different >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Lizzie-

You can take your moderation and shove it up your ass.

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


I noticed that some of you gals and guys are already discussing with him, so the NCSE is looking forward to another 30 bucks.

Edit: Much more correcterer preposition.


Posted by: Febble on April 24 2012,08:01

It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation.  However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread.  If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 24 2012,08:54

He's already tripped over himself again.
I'm a fan of him erecting undeletable monuments to his own stupidity.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 24 2012,09:07

Quote (Febble @ April 24 2012,08:01)
It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation. However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread. If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Lizzy, I was talking about posting privileges = writing OPs as opposed to commenting. I never assumed that you did no longer allow him to comment.
And just to be clear, I love the way you manage your blog. :-)
Posted by: Febble on April 24 2012,09:43

Thanks :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 24 2012,10:23

Quote (Febble @ April 24 2012,09:43)
Thanks :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 24 2012,14:15

Joe is just about all that's left of ID. No one else will stay and fight.

I was a bit surprised to see WJM melt down into a puddle of Joe.

W is to philosophy what Uri Geller is to physics.
Posted by: paragwinn on April 25 2012,02:55

WJM and JoeG respond to the < "rabbit fossils found in pre-Cambrian strata" falsifiability test for evolution. >

WJM:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it might force a reorganization of the timeline of common descent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joe:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All it would do is cast doubt on our current time-line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They can't even evaluate the implications correctly. Go figure.

eta: inconsequential formatting and consequential strata labelling
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 25 2012,04:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it might force a reorganization of the timeline of common descent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll say! single-celled eukaryotes -> rabbits -> plants, animals, fungi ... and all those fucking trees will have to go - fossils trump molecules.


Posted by: midwifetoad on April 25 2012,15:57

Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-11721 >
Posted by: REC on April 25 2012,16:38

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 25 2012,15:57)
Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-11721 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution=Programmable ESP?
Posted by: fnxtr on April 25 2012,21:14

Quote (REC @ April 25 2012,14:38)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 25 2012,15:57)
Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-11721 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution=Programmable ESP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You can't read my mind. Therefore Jesus."

Sad, really.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 26 2012,02:49

Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 26 2012,06:19

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 26 2012,03:49)
Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.
Posted by: George on April 26 2012,07:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 26 2012,06:19)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 26 2012,03:49)
Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely it's blurry and context dependent.  Arguably even more so in Europe and other places with a long history of intensive human meddling in nature than in North America. These are the sorts of issues I thrash about with in my work.  Those lovely species-rich grasslands that aren't plowed, herbicided or fertilised, they're natural aren't they?  But wait, wouldn't they be forests if you got rid of the cattle?  Or would the deer keep the grasslands open?  And what about the now-extinct wolves?

These sorts of arguments are why we use the term "semi-natural" a lot!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 26 2012,07:30

first nature is a myth
Posted by: George on April 26 2012,07:54

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 26 2012,07:30)
first nature is a myth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The birds will be so disappointed. >
Posted by: SLP on April 26 2012,08:46

So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...
Posted by: Quack on April 26 2012,09:05

Quote (fnxtr @ April 25 2012,21:14)
 
Quote (REC @ April 25 2012,14:38)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 25 2012,15:57)
Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-11721 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution=Programmable ESP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You can't read my mind. Therefore Jesus."

Sad, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An Oiuja board would serve the purpose much better than any GA, solution guaranteed. Not to mention good old prayer, works every time. Not to mention monkeys with typewriters!

But only $50? He has more faith in GA's than I have!


Posted by: Alan Fox on April 26 2012,10:36

Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument? I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't know if you caught < this >? Lizzie remains < unimpressed >.
Posted by: clamboy on May 03 2012,13:50

TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but  he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.
Posted by: damitall on May 03 2012,17:35

Quote (clamboy @ May 03 2012,13:50)
TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


clamboy, I salute your inventiveness with invective.

Rightly targeted, too.
Posted by: SLP on May 04 2012,12:17

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2012,10:36)
Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument? I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't know if you caught < this >? Lizzie remains < unimpressed >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor I.  He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete.  Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.
Posted by: fnxtr on May 04 2012,15:09

Quote (SLP @ May 04 2012,10:17)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2012,10:36)
Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument? I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't know if you caught < this >? Lizzie remains < unimpressed >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor I. He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete. Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's their whole schtick, though: word games, lawyering, and 9th-grade-chess-club-nerd style "arguments".
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 09 2012,08:53

OH NOES. TSZ Gets a < BAD REVIEW >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
<span style='font-family:Comic Sans MS'></span>The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another Dishonest and Cowardly EvoTARD Blog
-
The "Skeptical" Zone? Please, seeing that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence you don't have any right to be skeptical of anything but your position.

"Good faith" posts? Please, seeing that all you can do is lie, misrepresent what others say and not support your position, there isn't one bit of good faith in any evo.

EvoTARDgasms galour? Absolutely- Lizzie has created yet another venue in which evoTARDgasms can go on and on without ever being challenged.

Congratulations Lizzie- well done...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Poor Joe! Have a bunny:




Posted by: Kristine on May 11 2012,14:35

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 26 2012,06:19)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 26 2012,03:49)
Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My major paper on how evolutionary theory can articulate archival theory dealt with just this question, too. Human society is a subset of nature, a creation of nature, and to label everything that we do (like create records) as artificial, while labeling constructions such as birds' nests as natural, is fallacious, the product of our dualistic thinking. Ironically, this also gets to the very core of ID, as its adherents cannot conceive of the natural. They use the word (as many others do) to mean "morally right" or "in balance," etc. Being also rigidly black and white thinkers, they fail to grasp the concept of a continuum.

Certainly nothing is unnatural that is not physically impossible. -John Bartlet

(Which does not mean I'm in any hurry to participate in the naturalness of illness or death, now, does it? ) ;)

< Avian Architecture >
Posted by: Soapy Sam on May 13 2012,03:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Understood, my bad for not thoroughly reading the OP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Joe G >. Yes, really! Of course, it was directed to WJM, so the world has not in fact tilted on its axis.

(Personal hypocrisy declaration: I too am much less likely to apologise to one of 'them' for point-missing).

A related phenomenon, WJM reckons Joe has got in a few 'zingers'. That what they're calling it these days?


Posted by: George on May 16 2012,08:37

Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,08:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument? I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just checked in again on the semiotic argument thread. Upright has a very special creationist aroma doesn't he? So pungent, so cock-sure, so completely unable to get the flipping point. His most recent best is his refusal to understand the difference between logical arguments and empirically-based arguments.
Posted by: Henry J on May 16 2012,22:09

Semiotic? Check the thread about the guy I think you're talking about.

Henry
Posted by: Starbuck on May 31 2012,10:57

Whenever i go to < http://theskepticalzone.com/....one.com > it takes me to an error page. I can probably fix that for you.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 31 2012,11:04

Hahahahaha, yes, I remember when < the IDiots were startling to me > in their profound and willful ignorance. That's been a long time ago, though.

They've long since graduated to "sometimes amusing to poke with a stick".
Posted by: sledgehammer on May 31 2012,11:45

Quote (Starbuck @ May 31 2012,08:57)
Whenever i go to < http://theskepticalzone.com/....one....one.com > it takes me to an error page. I can probably fix that for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That link takes you to the setup page.

Try < this >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 31 2012,14:36

Quote (Starbuck @ May 31 2012,10:57)
Whenever i go to < http://theskepticalzone.com/....one....one.com > it takes me to an error page. I can probably fix that for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, it does not redirect me to intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com.
Posted by: The whole truth on June 06 2012,20:54

Got this in my email today:

Friend request

You have received a friend request from TINA123
(amsalutina@yahoo.com) Hi, Dear My name is miss Tina, l saw your profile today @ (http://theskepticalzone.com),doing my search in Google, and after going through it then l made up my mind to contact you as my friend. so l want you to write back to me through my email address (amsalutina@yahoo.com) so that l will give you my picture and for you to know more about me. I hope to see your mail soon. Cares Tina. (amsalutina@yahoo.com)
Go to The Skeptical Zone...

Please don't reply to this email
Powered by WP Symposium - Social Networking for WordPress v12.05.14

-------------------------------------

miss Tina, eh? Sounds legit. I'm really tempted. LOL
Posted by: Badger3k on June 06 2012,21:07

Quote (The whole truth @ June 06 2012,20:54)
Got this in my email today:

Friend request

You have received a friend request from TINA123
(amsalutina@yahoo.com) Hi, Dear My name is miss Tina, l saw your profile today @ (http://theskepticalzone.com),doing my search in Google, and after going through it then l made up my mind to contact you as my friend. so l want you to write back to me through my email address (amsalutina@yahoo.com) so that l will give you my picture and for you to know more about me. I hope to see your mail soon. Cares Tina. (amsalutina@yahoo.com)
Go to The Skeptical Zone...

Please don't reply to this email
Powered by WP Symposium - Social Networking for WordPress v12.05.14

-------------------------------------

miss Tina, eh? Sounds legit. I'm really tempted. LOL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like Tina needs to contact the "fixer of personal problems", Joe G.  I'm sure he has some interesting things to say to her.
Posted by: Tom A on June 06 2012,22:52

Quote (The whole truth @ June 06 2012,20:54)
Got this in my email today:

Friend request

You have received a friend request from TINA123
(amsalutina@yahoo.com) Hi, Dear My name is miss Tina, l saw your profile today @ (http://theskepticalzone.com),doing my search in Google, and after going through it then l made up my mind to contact you as my friend. so l want you to write back to me through my email address (amsalutina@yahoo.com) so that l will give you my picture and for you to know more about me. I hope to see your mail soon. Cares Tina. (amsalutina@yahoo.com)
Go to The Skeptical Zone...

Please don't reply to this email
Powered by WP Symposium - Social Networking for WordPress v12.05.14

-------------------------------------

miss Tina, eh? Sounds legit. I'm really tempted. LOL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey--I got that one too. She needed some money to fly out and visit me for some hot sex! It turns out that traveling from Nigeria to Illinois is really expensive!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on June 07 2012,04:53

I bet Tina has a huge inheritance waiting for her at a foreign bank and needs your help to clear it, acting as her legal guardian.
Posted by: damitall on June 07 2012,11:52

Quote (The whole truth @ June 06 2012,20:54)
Got this in my email today:

Friend request

You have received a friend request from TINA123
(amsalutina@yahoo.com) Hi, Dear My name is miss Tina, l saw your profile today @ (http://theskepticalzone.com),doing my search in Google, and after going through it then l made up my mind to contact you as my friend. so l want you to write back to me through my email address (amsalutina@yahoo.com) so that l will give you my picture and for you to know more about me. I hope to see your mail soon. Cares Tina. (amsalutina@yahoo.com)
Go to The Skeptical Zone...

Please don't reply to this email
Powered by WP Symposium - Social Networking for WordPress v12.05.14

-------------------------------------

miss Tina, eh? Sounds legit. I'm really tempted. LOL
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


miss Tina seems to be playing the field, the little minx. I got that very same message.

But hey, I'm all fixed up for Nigerian princesses and that kind of thing - you guys can fight it out between you.

Have fun, now!
Posted by: socle on June 09 2012,00:14

< Robert Byers: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At least it once again shows the powerful impact of ID/YEC creationism upon the modern times. We are truly the talk of the town and a rising threat to the old order. Either we will prevail or it become a newsworthy flop in our time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cleverbot:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I truly don't think you could pass the Turing test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Amadan on June 09 2012,03:48

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 07 2012,10:53)
I bet Tina has a huge inheritance waiting for her at a foreign bank and needs your help to clear it, acting as her legal guardian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a quick way to find out!


Posted by: Soapy Sam on Sep. 06 2012,10:44

Getting 'Internal Server Error' trying to load some pages. Is it just me? (I realise probably not, since I don't host the place!).
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 06 2012,11:17

Not just you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2012,22:53

< end of the innocence >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe Felsenstein on September 24, 2012 at 1:01 pm said:
Folks, if Elizabeth were active here she would send the lot of you to the Sandbox. Your material on peoples personal and political motivations is irrelevant to the gpuccio discussion. The same thing is happening at UD where everyone here is being called liars.

I am trying to have a discussion with gpuccio but the noise level here looks to be a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark Frank
on September 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm said:
I second this. The moderation policy at UD has meant that this blog has become a sort of parallel discussion. It would be easier if it were one blog but it works in a fashion.

Lets make sure this blog does not turn into another AtBC. I am not saying that there isnt a place for AtBC as well but its a different place. UD combines genuine criticism with more personal stuff but it works better if they are separate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When tard addicts start running low on the tard they get huffy and try to protect their stash.

ID has been dead for years. you guys are trying to scrape the last little corner of the pipe over there. good luck to that



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because ID is dead as a mackerel, theres no point in arguing against it scientifically anymore, and all we have left is making fun of diehard IDiots like Donald who still try to walk the stinking corpse around, a la Weekend at Bernies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Lenny done said it years ago >

Like it or not, tardahols, "motive" is the single fucking thing there is worth talking about when it comes to intelligent design creationism. How many times do you need to jack off to the same picture before you realize the cake is a whore?





Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2012,23:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike Elzinga
on September 25, 2012 at 12:49 am said:
Henry Morris and Duane Gish would be very pleased to see how their memes are being expressed in their intellectual descendants over at UD. Every misconception and misrepresentation about science, from thermodynamics to atoms and molecules to the origins of life and onward to evolution, is expressed as clearly as a deadly genetic disease in Morriss and Gishs intellectual progeny over there.

Even funnier, those UD characters like abandoned street urchins dont know anything about their own intellectual ancestry. They dont know or understand the genetic and memetic markers that identify them; and they actually believe they are solving the scientific problems that Morris and Gish set out for them by introducing them into their intellectual memes and genes. ID is their attempted solution to the pseudo-scientific memes that reside in their heads.

Who says ID is not a morph of scientific creationism? The paternity test screams otherwise; right over there at UD. Its in their intellectual DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, it's not a morph and it's not a descendent. It's the same fucking corpse they trotted out before it's just wearing a bit more face paint and they trimmed it's bush.

i understand why you want to screw gpuccio to the mat. in fact, several people here voted him "Most Likely To De-tard" so I can only infer that you voted this way because you are fond of him. And maybe he is most likely to de-tard.

but so what? no one is a committed creationist because they have reviewed the evidence. they are pre-committed. if you manage to convince gpuccio that ID is the bollocks it undoubtedly is, then you haven't convinced him to renounce creationism, which is a state of denial and not a positive position. and even if he does in some way renounce creationism, it will be a business decision. a trade-off.

So, that makes it a twist but otherwise, you're still arguing with a creationist. olegt keeps bringing that up in a beautifully cynical way. ID is deader than a mackerel


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2012,23:08

honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics?  really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?
Posted by: Cubist on Sep. 25 2012,23:41

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,23:08)
honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics? really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say ID is the more dangerous form of stupidity. With YECs, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position are so blatantly obvious that YEC-pushers plain old can't win in courteven if they do luck out and get a fundy-friendly judge to agree that YEC is All Science So Far, that f-f judge will be hobbled by (a) YEC's voluminous legalistic track record which incontrovertibly proves that YEC is religious dogma, and (b) the need to cobble together some sort of justification that won't get shredded on contact with an appeals judge.
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 26 2012,01:24

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 25 2012,21:00)
but so what? no one is a committed creationist because they have reviewed the evidence. they are pre-committed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we do it for amusement, of course, but some of us also do it for the onlookers.  Seriously.

I grew up an evangelical creationist and had to grow out of it in my teens.  Those were difficult years. It would have done me a world of good if I could have gone online and seen creationist arguments getting trounced on the Internet.

We may never persuade the hardened tards, but there are kids out there who are brainwashed, like I was, but smart enough to know a good argument when they see one.  They are still reachable.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Sep. 26 2012,03:05

Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 25 2012,23:41)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,23:08)
honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics? really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say ID is the more dangerous form of stupidity. With YECs, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position are so blatantly obvious that YEC-pushers plain old can't win in courteven if they do luck out and get a fundy-friendly judge to agree that YEC is All Science So Far, that f-f judge will be hobbled by (a) YEC's voluminous legalistic track record which incontrovertibly proves that YEC is religious dogma, and (b) the need to cobble together some sort of justification that won't get shredded on contact with an appeals judge.
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fortunately, UD comments form a prime exhibit and permanent record for the window-dressing charge. Despite 'repeated correction' that ID isn't CIACT, but stands on its own merits, one has to peel away just one, rather threadbare layer to reveal the truth. They haven't a hope in hell in court, and they know it. But ... Joe Average buys it alarmingly readily. The internet provides an excellent resource for crackpots to get together and gain mass, and look, in the process, like genuine seekers of truth. See also: Climate, Conspiracy. And scientists giving reasoned explanations are fodder to the publicity mill. So ... you're saying you've never observed protein synthesis evolving without intelligent input? But you have typed English characters on a computer, right?


Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 26 2012,06:23

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 26 2012,11:05)
Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 25 2012,23:41)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,23:08)
honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics? really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say ID is the more dangerous form of stupidity. With YECs, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position are so blatantly obvious that YEC-pushers plain old can't win in courteven if they do luck out and get a fundy-friendly judge to agree that YEC is All Science So Far, that f-f judge will be hobbled by (a) YEC's voluminous legalistic track record which incontrovertibly proves that YEC is religious dogma, and (b) the need to cobble together some sort of justification that won't get shredded on contact with an appeals judge.
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fortunately, UD comments form a prime exhibit and permanent record for the window-dressing charge. Despite 'repeated correction' that ID isn't CIACT, but stands on its own merits, one has to peel away just one, rather threadbare layer to reveal the truth. They haven't a hope in hell in court, and they know it. But ... Joe Average buys it alarmingly readily. The internet provides an excellent resource for crackpots to get together and gain mass, and look, in the process, like genuine seekers of truth. See also: Climate, Conspiracy. And scientists giving reasoned explanations are fodder to the publicity mill. So ... you're saying you've never observed protein synthesis evolving without intelligent input? But you have typed English characters on a computer, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PPPPPHHHHHTTTT, ...HOMO!

YOU SAY TOMATOE, I SAY POTATOE.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN 10,000 MONKEYS TYPE SHAEKESPERE?

NO?

CHANCE WORSHIPPERS SUCH AS YOURSELF JUST DON'T GET IT.

YOU EVOTARDS ARE STOPPING OUR MARINES FROM PRAYING AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?


IT MEANS BODYSNATCHING, HORIZONTAL DANCING, INVASION BY ALIENS, THE END OF SLAVERY AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT GOD WILL BE ON THEIR SIDE!!!!!!

Tard-o-rant by Dave Tard©
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 26 2012,07:32

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 26 2012,02:24)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,21:00)
but so what? no one is a committed creationist because they have reviewed the evidence. they are pre-committed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we do it for amusement, of course, but some of us also do it for the onlookers. Seriously.

I grew up an evangelical creationist and had to grow out of it in my teens. Those were difficult years. It would have done me a world of good if I could have gone online and seen creationist arguments getting trounced on the Internet.

We may never persuade the hardened tards, but there are kids out there who are brainwashed, like I was, but smart enough to know a good argument when they see one. They are still reachable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well I understand the amusement for sure.  but onlooker is here already and i am not sure that there are really that many onlookers.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I grew up an evangelical creationist and had to grow out of it in my teens. Those were difficult years. It would have done me a world of good if I could have gone online and seen creationist arguments getting trounced on the Internet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Totally, me too.  But the reason why we de-tarded, and the tards haven't, is not because we had access to better arguments or information, but because we employed critical analysis to the claims of tard.

In my experience, you'll either do that, or you won't.  If you will, then you will drop ID tard on your own.  If you won't, no amount of thrashing with GAs or Weasel latches will convince you to detard.

How many people do you know that have de-tarded on the basis of your online dialogue?  I am skeptical that this is really anyone's basic motivation.

Even if it sounds good how could anyone possibly believe that they could reason someone out of a proposition which they did not reason themselves into?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 26 2012,07:33

By the way, if you haven't voted for the



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TARD most likely to DE-TARD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then PM me, you magnificent bastards
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 26 2012,07:36

Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 26 2012,00:41)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,23:08)
honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics? really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say ID is the more dangerous form of stupidity. With YECs, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position are so blatantly obvious that YEC-pushers plain old can't win in courteven if they do luck out and get a fundy-friendly judge to agree that YEC is All Science So Far, that f-f judge will be hobbled by (a) YEC's voluminous legalistic track record which incontrovertibly proves that YEC is religious dogma, and (b) the need to cobble together some sort of justification that won't get shredded on contact with an appeals judge.
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the difference between the two, as you have described them, is purely political packaging.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd say, "Only if they are already committed to the tard."

If they are already on the tard, then ID will sound wonderful.  If they have never hit the tard before then it will sound like the bollocks that it is. Creationists love ID because they can sound all sciency but they are still creationists underneath the thin veneer of stolen respectability.

Can you provide me of an example of a rational human being who has affirmed that ID is True Science ??
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 26 2012,08:14

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 26 2012,08:32)
How many people do you know that have de-tarded on the basis of your online dialogue? I am skeptical that this is really anyone's basic motivation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know of two, just to throw that out there.

Stephen Elliot, who used to post here is one.

The other < is Mandi Kaye >, who used to have a blog called "Imago Dei", and was a commenter at UDoJ.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 26 2012,08:39

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 26 2012,09:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 26 2012,08:32)
How many people do you know that have de-tarded on the basis of your online dialogue? I am skeptical that this is really anyone's basic motivation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know of two, just to throw that out there.

Stephen Elliot, who used to post here is one.

The other < is Mandi Kaye >, who used to have a blog called "Imago Dei", and was a commenter at UDoJ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking of stephen, wasn't aware of mandi.

so we have one good example of someone de-tarding within the history of this board.

what we still haven't demonstrated is whether that de-tard was



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
on the basis of [your] online dialogue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's hard to imagine ID without the internet, indeed that is about the only place it exists.

A theoretically possible mythic beast that is often hailed in story and song, but all reports and observations of this purported being have turned out to be the rotting corpse of Creationism, being animated by dominionist political tools.

Mike Elzinga likes to toodle about this non-stop, how he has been watching the creationists since before creation and it's all a Duane Gish Henry Morris rehash mashup and nothing new has come from this since.

**ETA

To refrain from thread bogartery I started a new thread

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=7410 >

to talk about De-tardery


Posted by: BillB on Oct. 06 2012,03:42

The Skeptical Zone seems to have gone down ... just as I was about to post something there. Doh!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 01 2012,11:00

I seem to be in moderation at TSZ, without warning or explanation.
Posted by: hotshoe on Nov. 03 2012,03:02

Everyone is "in moderation" at TSZ because something is broken.  Nothing personal.

Comments can be approved by the author of each thread, and that's happening if the author knows they need to check the moderation queue.  

We need Lizzie.  Send out the penguin signal.
Posted by: hotshoe on Nov. 03 2012,12:04

There has been a miraculous recovery at TSZ.  The overall moderation issue has apparently fixed itself.  I think some replies may still be stuck in spam filter, but new replies are getting posted as of this morning.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 03 2012,15:27

I think I broke it with an HTML table. That was the first comment I know of to go into moderation. So no more tables.

They don't display correctly, anyway, even though they display in the preview.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 04 2012,07:43

Now it's "Error establishing a database connection". I tell you, the whole place is going to wrack and ruin without Lizzie.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 04 2012,07:58

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 04 2012,07:43)
Now it's "Error establishing a database connection". I tell you, the whole place is going to wrack and ruin without Lizzie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wack-A-Mole.

Or is it mol?
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 04 2012,12:04

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 04 2012,05:58)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 04 2012,07:43)
Now it's "Error establishing a database connection". I tell you, the whole place is going to wrack and ruin without Lizzie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wack-A-Mole.

Or is it mol?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wack-a-moi?

There's a Latin word for that.
Posted by: Seversky on Nov. 04 2012,15:41

It's no good.  I tried whacking the monitor (in both Latin and English) but it's still "Error establishing a database connection".
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 04 2012,19:18

!!!!111!!!!!11111111!!!
She's checked in.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 06 2013,11:46

Granville Sewell has to < resort to his imagination > to find people who like his video:


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

For me, the real argument for intelligent design has always been extremely simple, and doesnt require any advanced mathematics or microbiology to grasp. The video below makes this argument in the simplest, clearest way I can make it. My uncle Harry and aunt Martha like the video, and cant understand why so many intelligent scientists arent impressed by this very simple argument.

[snip]

If I could figure out a way to use some more advanced mathematics in my arguments, if I could figure out a way to restate the basic point in such a way that uncle Harry and aunt Martha couldnt understand it, I might make some progress (I dont really have an uncle Harry or an aunt Martha, by the way, but many people do). Perhaps it would help if I linked to my < resume >, or to my < finite element program >, to show that I am capable of doing more advanced mathematics, even if I havent used any of it in this video.

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



Granville,

You are barking up the wrong tree. The lack of more advanced mathematics in your argument is not the root of your problem. Good physics does not (necessarily) require sophisticated math. Einstein's special relativity uses 7th-grade algebra, yet it s quite profound as a physical theory.

Your problem is that you are not a good physicist. You do not understand statistical physics. Here are just a couple of points.  

* There are simple examples of entropy compensation that you seem to be unaware of.
* Your "X-entropy" is not a new concept. It is a bastardized version of the familiar, run-of-the-mill entropy associated with the number of configurations of atoms in real space.

There are a few threads at the Skeptical Zone, where well-qualified physicists and chemists dissected your technical arguments in great detail. You were invited to participate but you did not have the courage to show up.

< A Second Look at the Second Law... >
< Granville Sewell vs. Bob Lloyd. >

What a clown.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 07 2013,03:03

TSZ has been hacked. I shall take a baseball bat to a few mailboxes forthwith, 'cos that's big and clever too.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 07 2013,09:27

Wordpress need to fix this.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 07 2013,12:25

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2013,04:27)
Wordpress need to fix this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fear not. The site is on an independent server and unless Lizzie has delegated someone the FTP access, she will need to ask her web service provider to help or wipe the infected files and reinstall a clean copy of wordpress.

ETA

Sorted.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 08 2013,09:30

Seems as though things are back up and running.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 08 2013,09:44

I was able to request a password update using my email address and enter a new password. I now seem to be back.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 22 2013,08:39

Is Lizzie's site down again? Can't seem to connect this morning.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 22 2013,09:02

Same here - and two hours ago it worked just fine.
Maybe Lizzie is doing the spring cleaning.


Edited for proper grammar.


Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 22 2013,11:38

It hiccups. Always has.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on Mar. 23 2013,11:52

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 04 2012,07:58)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 04 2012,07:43)
Now it's "Error establishing a database connection". I tell you, the whole place is going to wrack and ruin without Lizzie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wack-A-Mole.

Or is it mol?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or is it Wack-A-Troll.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 23 2013,12:42

Sorry, yes it's a very cheap hosting service.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on Mar. 23 2013,20:35

It's on.
Posted by: clamboy on April 08 2013,13:18

I am enjoying the uptick in TSZ's postings and conversations, mostly for the education, but certainly not least for the return of...

(heralds sound)

His Most Royal Tardiness, William J Murray.

I mean, No Neck Joe and GG Aulin get the job done, but when William J Murray posts, I feel like Screwtape taking in the luscious air of a Torquemada. His arrogance, His dismissiveness, His air of lese majeste when addressing Lizzie's posts about Dembski (or replies to His Own comments), His refusal to answer or even acknowledge questions or define His terms, His condescension and derision and insults...ah, I think I could never surfeit on the black bile that is the soul of William J Murray!
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 08 2013,13:48

Quote (clamboy @ April 08 2013,19:18)
I am enjoying the uptick in TSZ's postings and conversations, mostly for the education, but certainly not least for the return of...

(heralds sound)

His Most Royal Tardiness, William J Murray.

I mean, No Neck Joe and GG Aulin get the job done, but when William J Murray posts, I feel like Screwtape taking in the luscious air of a Torquemada. His arrogance, His dismissiveness, His air of lese majeste when addressing Lizzie's posts about Dembski (or replies to His Own comments), His refusal to answer or even acknowledge questions or define His terms, His condescension and derision and insults...ah, I think I could never surfeit on the black bile that is the soul of William J Murray!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For those disinclined to seek out the pearls cast at the swine, this is a GEM:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, the reason I dont post here much is because I have a limited capacity to endure your ilk this very kind of endless rabbit-holing and obfuscation of terms.But, out of a sense of fair play, Ill spend some time here.

For as long as I can stomach it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 08 2013,14:32

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 08 2013,13:48)
 
Quote (clamboy @ April 08 2013,19:18)
I am enjoying the uptick in TSZ's postings and conversations, mostly for the education, but certainly not least for the return of...

(heralds sound)

His Most Royal Tardiness, William J Murray.

I mean, No Neck Joe and GG Aulin get the job done, but when William J Murray posts, I feel like Screwtape taking in the luscious air of a Torquemada. His arrogance, His dismissiveness, His air of lese majeste when addressing Lizzie's posts about Dembski (or replies to His Own comments), His refusal to answer or even acknowledge questions or define His terms, His condescension and derision and insults...ah, I think I could never surfeit on the black bile that is the soul of William J Murray!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For those disinclined to seek out the pearls cast at the swine, this is a GEM:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, the reason I dont post here much is because I have a limited capacity to endure your ilk this very kind of endless rabbit-holing and obfuscation of terms.But, out of a sense of fair play, Ill spend some time here.

For as long as I can stomach it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Just so long as he can put up with some pro-science comments for a short time, his intellectual honesty is hardly in question.

Among the IDiots, that is.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 08 2013,14:46

Design detection filter says probability of flounce is one hundred percent. Expulsion: zero percent.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 08 2013,15:01

"Obfuscation of terms"? The nerve - One thing I admire about Lizzie is that she always makes sure that everyone agrees on definitions.
Posted by: clamboy on April 08 2013,15:04

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 08 2013,14:46)
Design detection filter says probability of flounce is one hundred percent. Expulsion: zero percent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All that He does is a flounce. Each snide remark, each disdainful word dripping with snobbery, reads as a flounce.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 08 2013,15:13

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 08 2013,15:01)
"Obfuscation of terms"? The nerve - One thing I admire about Lizzie is that she always makes sure that everyone agrees on definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obfuscation = You don't accept my equivocation.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 08 2013,17:57

Hey, annoying other participants in a debate is easy: Just insist they prove a negative: "Show me without the shadow of a doubt there is no intelligence involved. You can't? I win!" That's what Murray it doing in "A Search for a Search" at the moment.
Posted by: Cubist on April 08 2013,18:56

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 08 2013,15:01)
"Obfuscation of terms"? The nerve - One thing I admire about Lizzie is that she always makes sure that everyone agrees on definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"always makes sure"? Well except for the times when she's trying to reach agreement with a person who flatly will not agree no matter what
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 13 2013,20:59

All WordPress sites seem to be under a coodinated attack, so TSZ is flaky at the moment. WordPress serms to have locked admin logins until they figure out what to do.
Posted by: The whole truth on April 19 2013,09:23








< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....o....omments >

ETA: For some reason the link doesn't work for me. murray's comment is in the Searching for a search thread at TSZ.


Posted by: Robin on April 19 2013,13:47

Quote (The whole truth @ April 19 2013,09:23)

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


Ahh man...completely missed the fact that he responded. I was wondering if he'd answer in the affirmative. Given the "yes", my followup question was going to be how reliable he thought this ID detection could be. I mean, what with demons being the "intelligence", you'd think they might be doing one or two things to trick folks.

Maybe the Intelligent Designer is Morton's Demon.
:D
Posted by: The whole truth on April 19 2013,15:20

Quote (Robin @ April 19 2013,11:47)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 19 2013,09:23)

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


Ahh man...completely missed the fact that he responded. I was wondering if he'd answer in the affirmative. Given the "yes", my followup question was going to be how reliable he thought this ID detection could be. I mean, what with demons being the "intelligence", you'd think they might be doing one or two things to trick folks.

Maybe the Intelligent Designer is Morton's Demon.
:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah :)

Or....




Posted by: Henry J on April 19 2013,22:27

Quote (Robin @ April 19 2013,12:47)
Maybe the Intelligent Designer is Morton's Demon.
:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't Buffy slay him?
Posted by: The whole truth on April 21 2013,13:37

I laughed my ass off when I saw this at TSZ:



Of course the real reason is because gordo is a sniveling wuss with a big mouth who is terrified of stepping out of the echo chamber UD sanctuary and his dictatorial, bible-thumping blog to defend his ignorant, lie-filled, bloviating, fire and brimstone sermons that he tries to pass off as scientific arguments. Sad.

It wouldn't matter if I weren't around or if my head were on a stick. gordo would still run and hide from openly and honestly facing his challengers and reality. Sadly sad.

"Bydand" must mean: Run for cover, the scary evomats are coming!1!1!!11!

For Record. Sadly.

Please do better gordo.

TWT of EVO

END.

P.S. Sad.

P.P.S. So sad.

FN: Sadly sad.

CF: Crybaby.

FN: P.P.P.S. Slanderously sad.
Posted by: The whole truth on April 27 2013,04:36

From joey's fever blister blog:


Posted by: damitall on April 27 2013,07:43

And that's the guy Mr Gordon Elliott "Broughtupcy" Mullings is always cosying up to?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 27 2013,11:56

Quote (damitall @ April 27 2013,07:43)
And that's the guy Mr Gordon Elliott "Broughtupcy" Mullings is always cosying up to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crosspost:

KF:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
504kairosfocusApril 27, 2013 at 10:24 am
Joe: Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here. It is time to get up on the wagon across the board. KF

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



Have you read his blog, KF?

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

Go on - have a thorough read.

You won't, because the American Taliban need their thugs.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 27 2013,12:39

Quote (Joe G @ April 27 2013,14:56)
Fuck you, bitch.

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



Very smart.
Posted by: The whole truth on April 27 2013,13:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 27 2013,09:56)
Quote (damitall @ April 27 2013,07:43)
And that's the guy Mr Gordon Elliott "Broughtupcy" Mullings is always cosying up to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crosspost:

KF:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
504kairosfocusApril 27, 2013 at 10:24 am
Joe: Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here. It is time to get up on the wagon across the board. KF

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



Have you read his blog, KF?

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

Go on - have a thorough read.

You won't, because the American Taliban need their thugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"crude behaviour elsewhere"?

joey's behavior is also crude at UD! Yeah, the place where gordo 'is-ought-grounded-morals-in-god' mullings goes on and on and on about crude behavior by opponents of ID! And what about joey's threats, lies, false accusations, etc.?

gordo makes a BIG stink about TSZ, and especially the alleged "harbouring" and "enabling" of people that gordo accuses of being amoral/immoral (crude), evil (crude), threatening (crude), dishonest (crude), and falsely accusatory (crude), yet it was TSZ, not UD, that BANNED joey for being CRUDE!

UD has done NOTHING to stop joey's crudeness, and they have been "harbouring" and "enabling" him and other "crude" IDiots for a long time. Compare gordo's totally lame "It is time to get up on the wagon across the board." with all of the sanctimonious, accusatory, multi-thousand word, fire and brimstone tirades he has spewed at UD, his own sites, and elsewhere against anyone who opposes him, even when they're civil in doing so.

And what about arrington, the "President" of UD? What's stopping him from condemning joey's "crude behaviour" at UD and elsewhere and permanently banning joey from UD? The only reason gordo said anything at all about joey's "crude behaviour" is because gordo's massive double standards are being strongly pointed out here and elsewhere. Otherwise, gordo, arrington, and the rest of the IDiots obviously have no problem with joey's "crude behaviour" at UD and "elsewhere". Anything goes as long as ID is being pushed.


Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 27 2013,17:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 27 2013,17:56)
Quote (damitall @ April 27 2013,07:43)
And that's the guy Mr Gordon Elliott "Broughtupcy" Mullings is always cosying up to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crosspost:

KF:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
504kairosfocusApril 27, 2013 at 10:24 am
Joe: Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here. It is time to get up on the wagon across the board. KF

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



Have you read his blog, KF?

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

Go on - have a thorough read.

You won't, because the American Taliban need their thugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Stop it! More fuel for KF's bully-boy accusations!

Meantime, in a quiet backwater of ID academia (link above):


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Previous Posts

Elizabeth Liddle has Totally Lost It
"Evolution is Not Blind"????
Elizabeth Liddle- Bluffing Doofus
Pressure Cookers- Why Pressure Cookers?
Boston Marathon Explosions
Andreas Schueler Chokes Again- When "Groups Under ...
Andreas DipShit Schueler- Sez I am Wrong, Then Agr...
Andreas Schueler, Lying Piece of Shit
Andy Schueler, Schooled on Nested Hierarchies
Joe Felsenstein- Clueless 'til the end
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Driver on April 27 2013,20:13

Who pays for UD now? Do they really want a site where the most prominent voices are Joe, Gordon, and batshit?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 28 2013,02:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 27 2013,18:56)
KF:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
504kairosfocusApril 27, 2013 at 10:24 am
Joe: Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here. It is time to get up on the wagon across the board. KF

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



Have you read his blog, KF?

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com >

Go on - have a thorough read.

You won't, because the American Taliban need their thugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh noes - does that mean we won't see any more Friday meltdowns?

Joe, be strong! Don't comply! It's your blog, not Gordo's. And if he bans you it's a small price to pay for your right to free speech.

Observation: Joe has been foulmouthed for years.
Hypothesis: He needs to periodocally vent all that helpless rage accumulating inside him when scientists demonstrate his incompetence.
Prediction: He either won't comply, or he will use his fallback blog to swear as soon as someone corners him with nested hierarchy.
Posted by: Quack on April 28 2013,03:03

Reply to Driver's


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who pays for UD now? Do they really want a site where the most prominent voices are Joe, Gordon, and batshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the use of ID? If Gary can, the ID thugs could just as well have their own thread(s) at AtBC?


ETA: Reference to Driver.


Posted by: Driver on April 28 2013,06:55

Quote (Quack @ April 28 2013,09:03)
Reply to Driver's
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who pays for UD now? Do they really want a site where the most prominent voices are Joe, Gordon, and batshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the use of ID? If Gary can, the ID thugs could just as well have their own thread(s) at AtBC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you mean, "what is the use of UD?"? Publicity, I presume. Joe, Gordon, and batshit can't be helping the cause.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 28 2013,06:58

Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,06:55)
Quote (Quack @ April 28 2013,09:03)
Reply to Driver's
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who pays for UD now? Do they really want a site where the most prominent voices are Joe, Gordon, and batshit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the use of ID? If Gary can, the ID thugs could just as well have their own thread(s) at AtBC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you mean, "what is the use of UD?"? Publicity, I presume. Joe, Gordon and batshit can't be helping the cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's also Byers.
Posted by: Driver on April 28 2013,07:16

Whoever pays for UD, they don't want their identity known. uncommondescent.com is registered with domainsbyproxy.com

I wouldn't pay a third party to own my website! I wonder why anonymity is so important to the owner of UD. It was originally Dembski, wasn't it? But surely he's not paying for it now.

Maybe it's the RDFRS. UD now more than ever is a good reason to have nothing to do with ID.

Maybe it's the ant farm of someone at AtBC.
Posted by: didymos on April 28 2013,07:24

Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.
Posted by: Driver on April 28 2013,07:51

Quote (didymos @ April 28 2013,13:24)
Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Thanks.

Then I wonder why Barry hasn't quietly banned the obvious loons. Unless he regards them as colleagues, just as sane as he is.
Posted by: The whole truth on April 28 2013,16:09

Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,05:51)
Quote (didymos @ April 28 2013,13:24)
Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Thanks.

Then I wonder why Barry hasn't quietly banned the obvious loons. Unless he regards them as colleagues, just as sane as he is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He obviously does regard them that way, and he's right that they're just as sane as he is, if you know what I mean. :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2013,17:10

Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,16:09)
Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,05:51)
Quote (didymos @ April 28 2013,13:24)
Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Thanks.

Then I wonder why Barry hasn't quietly banned the obvious loons. Unless he regards them as colleagues, just as sane as he is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He obviously does regard them that way, and he's right that they're just as sane as he is, if you know what I mean. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....l_idiot >
Posted by: Quack on April 29 2013,02:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 28 2013,17:10)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,16:09)
Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,05:51)
 
Quote (didymos @ April 28 2013,13:24)
Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Thanks.

Then I wonder why Barry hasn't quietly banned the obvious loons. Unless he regards them as colleagues, just as sane as he is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He obviously does regard them that way, and he's right that they're just as sane as he is, if you know what I mean. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......l_idiot >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In need, the Devil eats flies.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 29 2013,15:08

Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,07:51)
Quote (didymos @ April 28 2013,13:24)
Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Thanks.

Then I wonder why Barry hasn't quietly banned the obvious loons. Unless he regards them as colleagues, just as sane as he is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think, that the reason why he hasn't banned them, is because they're good money. They donate constantly, feeding Arrington. If they didn't, he would probably ban them by now.
Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on April 29 2013,19:00

From what I can tell, Barry has no interest in policing the behavior of anyone who hates on the Enlightenment as much as he does, and he just doesn't care how obscene Joe is, how misogynistic StephenB and Robert are, how much Philip spams every thread with the same woo over and over again, or how sanctimonious and hypocritical Gordon is.  They all deserve each other.  There are a few decent intellectuals who show up once in a while -- Nullasalus and Timaeus are the ones I've enjoyed arguing with -- but Timaeus dropped off a few months ago and Nullasalus a few weeks ago.  UD is scraping the very bottom of the barrel now, and I imagine they could continue to do so for a while to come.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 11 2013,05:22

Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.
Posted by: hotshoe on May 11 2013,09:03

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 11 2013,05:22)
Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh that's sad.  Seems like never-ending trouble for Libbie's site.  What got broken this time?

But I must confess I'm relieved it's not just something wrong with me or my computer ...
Posted by: eigenstate on May 11 2013,09:46

Quote (hotshoe @ May 11 2013,09:03)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 11 2013,05:22)
Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh that's sad. Seems like never-ending trouble for Libbie's site. What got broken this time?

But I must confess I'm relieved it's not just something wrong with me or my computer ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The domain is expired - if you do a whois on the name, you can see it's been moved to hosting at the "expired" domains servers at register.com:

< link >

. It just needs to be renewed. It's in the protection window where it's expired but is not available to purchase by someone else, but this only happens for a few days.
Posted by: Febble on May 11 2013,09:52

I'm trying to sort it out.  It's supposed to renew automatically, but something's gone wrong with the paypal account, I don't know what.

They should be getting back to me shortly.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 11 2013,14:26

Quote (Febble @ May 11 2013,09:52)
I'm trying to sort it out. It's supposed to renew automatically, but something's gone wrong with the paypal account, I don't know what.

They should be getting back to me shortly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've had to straighten out some commercial sites that lapsed like this.

What the registar doesn't tell you is that cards have expiration dates, and they get out of sync with the card on file.
Posted by: Febble on May 11 2013,15:04

The card is in date, the problem seems to be with paypal, and they won't take the card.

There is nothing wrong with paypal either, and register.com successfully took some money from it yesterday.

I don't know what the problem is.  It's bloody annoying.
Posted by: Febble on May 11 2013,16:03

Apparently they can't sort it out until Monday.  Bummer.

The person at register.com even tried to reinstate it for $0, but the payment wouldn't go through.

I have no idea what the problem is, but it seems to be at their end.
Posted by: keiths on May 11 2013,17:01

Quote (Febble @ May 11 2013,14:03)
Apparently they can't sort it out until Monday. Bummer.

The person at register.com even tried to reinstate it for $0, but the payment wouldn't go through.

I have no idea what the problem is, but it seems to be at their end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lizzie,

I'd be happy to make the payment from my PayPal account while you wait for them to sort things out.

PM me with the necessary details if you'd like me to go ahead.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 11 2013,18:10

Isn't WordPress a free hosting site? Why is a payment required?
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 11 2013,18:49

Quote (The whole truth @ May 11 2013,19:10)
Isn't WordPress a free hosting site? Why is a payment required?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wordpress is two separate things.

There is the blog software, which the estimable Dr. Liddle uses, and there is the free hosting domain, which she does not.

The problem is not with Wordpress, but with her hosting service.

I use GoDaddy for hosting SeductionByLouis, for instance. On my site I use free Wordpress software. My old blog Crowded Head Cozy Bed, took advantage of Wordpress.com's free hosting (http://crowdedheadcozybed.wordpress.com/), but my website (http://seductionbylouis.com/) does not.

Was that helpful, or have I had too much wine?


Posted by: The whole truth on May 11 2013,19:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 11 2013,16:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 11 2013,19:10)
Isn't WordPress a free hosting site? Why is a payment required?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wordpress is two separate things.

There is the blog software, which the estimable Dr. Liddle uses, and there is the free hosting domain, which she does not.

The problem is not with Wordpress, but with her hosting service.

I use GoDaddy for hosting SeductionByLouis, for instance. On my site I use free Wordpress software. My old blog Crowded Head Cozy Bed, took advantage of Wordpress.com's free hosting (http://crowdedheadcozybed.wordpress.com/), but my website (http://seductionbylouis.com/) does not.

Was that helpful, or have I had too much wine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Lou. I guess I understand now, although I don't see the advantage of paying for ordinary blog hosting when it can be gotten free. And with all of the problems Dr. Liddle's site has been having lately, I'd shitcan that hosting in a heartbeat, even if it were free.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 11 2013,22:29

Probably irrelevant, but I was at an estate sale Friday. The woman in line ahead of me paying for her stuff was from England and mentioned that her PayPal account had been hacked and cleaned out.

This is a rather odd coincidence. I am in Florida.

Edit to correct: the woman was not from England. She said the hacker was in England. My thought is that PayPal is probably doing a major audit, and may have put a hold on transactions.


Posted by: The whole truth on May 11 2013,23:59

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 11 2013,20:29)
Probably irrelevant, but I was at an estate sale Friday. The woman in line ahead of me paying for her stuff was from England and mentioned that her PayPal account had been hacked and cleaned out.

This is a rather odd coincidence. I am in Florida.

Edit to correct: the woman was not from England. She said the hacker was in England. My thought is that PayPal is probably doing a major audit, and may have put a hold on transactions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PayPal may work for some people but after all of the problems with it that I've seen reported, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: Febble on May 12 2013,04:33

The problem is not with the hosting service this time, which isn't great (webhostingpad), but is cheap, and my contract extends until next year.  When it expires I will probably go for a fancier hosting service.

The problem this time is with the domain name,  with register.com.  For some reason they can't process my payment for the domain name renewal, and their billing department only works weekdays.

I hope it will be sorted out on Monday.  The problem may be with paypal, but from what I can see from my paypal account, there is no problem, and register.com successfully took out a payment for my domain name insurance on Friday.  So it is a very irritating mystery.  Apologies to all.
Posted by: Febble on May 12 2013,04:36

I have to say that webhostingpad were great about sorting out the hack - they found the malignant code very quickly.  Too late to save the user database though.

But they do seem to have a lot of down time.  I think I'll see my contract out though.
Posted by: Febble on May 12 2013,05:09

Quote (keiths @ May 11 2013,17:01)
Quote (Febble @ May 11 2013,14:03)
Apparently they can't sort it out until Monday. Bummer.

The person at register.com even tried to reinstate it for $0, but the payment wouldn't go through.

I have no idea what the problem is, but it seems to be at their end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lizzie,

I'd be happy to make the payment from my PayPal account while you wait for them to sort things out.

PM me with the necessary details if you'd like me to go ahead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks keiths.  I'm not even sure if that would work - I tried using my son's credit card, but that also stalled.  There seems to be some hold on my account.

Register.com has promised that the problem is at the top of the list for Monday morning. I think we just have to wait.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 12 2013,07:18

Quote (Febble @ May 12 2013,05:33)
The problem is not with the hosting service this time, which isn't great (webhostingpad), but is cheap, and my contract extends until next year. When it expires I will probably go for a fancier hosting service.

The problem this time is with the domain name, with register.com. For some reason they can't process my payment for the domain name renewal, and their billing department only works weekdays.

I hope it will be sorted out on Monday. The problem may be with paypal, but from what I can see from my paypal account, there is no problem, and register.com successfully took out a payment for my domain name insurance on Friday. So it is a very irritating mystery. Apologies to all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You had mentioned this and I guess it had gone right past me. I'd gotten my domain names registered through my web hosting service, so that's probably why I had them tangled in my head.


Also, wine.

I hope they get it straightened out first thing with no problems.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 12 2013,09:42

Oddly enough, although attempted access to TSZ using OS X Safari gives domain name issues, I continue to successfully access TSZ using the Mac version of Firefox.

Weird.

(Probably a clue in there somewhere regarding what the problem is.)


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 12 2013,09:55

I've also successfully logged into my account and posted a test post using Firefox.

ETA: Now Firefox is being bounced too. But it worked for a day or so.

In addition to reporting the domain name issues it reported a blocked popup (there was no such report when access was working). So I unblocked popups and an ad for business cards pops up. The address in the popup window is TSZ's address, however.

Clicking the AdChoices arrow in the corner of up popup takes me to a page at Microsoft. I don't know if this is standard behavior because I ordinarily have popups blocked in Safari and it doesn't give notifications when popup has been blocked.


Posted by: midwifetoad on May 12 2013,10:29

It works for a while because the site is still up and can be accessed  by its IP address.

What is broken is DNS lookup,  which is cached by browsers for a while.

DNS  is broken because the registrar broke it for nonpayment.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 12 2013,11:24

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 12 2013,11:29)
It works for a while because the site is still up and can be accessed by its IP address.

What is broken is DNS lookup, which is cached by browsers for a while.

DNS is broken because the registrar broke it for nonpayment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see. Bed springs eternal.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 12 2013,12:51

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 12 2013,11:24)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 12 2013,11:29)
It works for a while because the site is still up and can be accessed by its IP address.

What is broken is DNS lookup, which is cached by browsers for a while.

DNS is broken because the registrar broke it for nonpayment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see. Bed springs eternal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DNS is like a phone book. You have to pay to get listed. Register.com is one of several companies authorized by the internet gods to sell names. I don't really know who the gods are.

Mortals are only allowed to interact with demigods.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 13 2013,06:29

@ Lizzie

You might take a look at OVH.com as a hosting service. They throw in domain name registration for free which makes life simpler. I have used them as a service provider for 8 years or so with never a problem.
Posted by: Febble on May 13 2013,07:22

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 13 2013,06:29)
@ Lizzie

You might take a look at OVH.com as a hosting service. They throw in domain name registration for free which makes life simpler. I have used them as a service provider for 8 years or so with never a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, I will.
Posted by: Febble on May 13 2013,12:21

OK, the domain name has been renewed.

Not sure how long it will take for the site to work. Hopefully not too long...
Posted by: Febble on May 13 2013,13:34

They say 12-24 hours.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 13 2013,14:10

Works for me now.
Posted by: Febble on May 13 2013,14:50

Working intermittently for me.  I expect it'll settle down.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 13 2013,18:31

It's not working, again.  :(
Posted by: didymos on May 13 2013,19:50

Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 13 2013,16:31)
It's not working, again. :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could just be taking a bit for it to propagate through DNS.  Works here
Posted by: The whole truth on May 13 2013,20:15

It's working for me now.
Posted by: Febble on May 14 2013,09:21

It's still intermittent for me.  I guess the bugs will get out of the system eventually.

I've been having a hilarious conversation with what seems to be a support-bot at register.com.

I've given up trying to get any sense out of it.  Now it just posts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen by replying to this email.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And when I do, I get the same message back.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 14 2013,09:40

I get the same kind of service from the FCC. Someone in my neighborhood has a rogue transmitter that intermittently blocks TV reception. There's no one left in the industry who can even read my complaint.
Posted by: Febble on May 14 2013,10:38

After the human species goes extinct, will the internet keep on going, sending useless messages from bot to bot?
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 14 2013,11:48

Quote (Febble @ May 14 2013,08:38)
After the human species goes extinct, will the internet keep on going, sending useless messages from bot to bot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recall a "Twilight Zone" show when a plague has killed all but one man. He wanders around a deserted city. One day he hears a phone ringing. He rushed to find it. It stopped ringing just before he reached it. Days pass. When he finally picked up the receiver when it rang again - it was a recording.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 14 2013,12:16

Quote (Febble @ May 14 2013,10:38)
After the human species goes extinct, will the internet keep on going, sending useless messages from bot to bot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There Will Come Soft Rains
< http://www.dennissylvesterhurd.com/blog....ain.htm >
Posted by: Febble on May 14 2013,12:28

Oh yes!  I'd forgotten.

Blimey.  It seemed so much less plausible when I read it back when.
Posted by: timothya on May 21 2013,06:43

Dr Elizabeth

Every attempt I make to log into TSZ (required to make a comment) is met with a login box that says I have to provide a username, password AND match a CATCHA pattern.

The problem is that no CAPTCHA pattern is displayed for me to attempt. Am I doing something wrong?
Posted by: Quack on May 21 2013,07:16

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 14 2013,09:40)
I get the same kind of service from the FCC. Someone in my neighborhood has a rogue transmitter that intermittently blocks TV reception. There's no one left in the industry who can even read my complaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suggest you get in touch with ARRL. Or, if it is an amateur station, any decent ham will do his best to help you. Or that's what I think, that's the way we do it here.

Sometimes the problem may have to be solved at the troubled site, even if the offending xmitter is ok.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 21 2013,14:00

Quote (timothya @ May 21 2013,06:43)
Dr Elizabeth

Every attempt I make to log into TSZ (required to make a comment) is met with a login box that says I have to provide a username, password AND match a CATCHA pattern.

The problem is that no CAPTCHA pattern is displayed for me to attempt. Am I doing something wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I log in It gives me a username and a simple calc for the password.

This is on top of the normal username and password.
Posted by: Cubist on May 21 2013,16:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2013,14:00)
Quote (timothya @ May 21 2013,06:43)
Dr Elizabeth

Every attempt I make to log into TSZ (required to make a comment) is met with a login box that says I have to provide a username, password AND match a CATCHA pattern.

The problem is that no CAPTCHA pattern is displayed for me to attempt. Am I doing something wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I log in It gives me a username and a simple calc for the password.

This is on top of the normal username and password.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that what you've described is the additional "line of defense" which was installed after TSZ got hacked. Once you fill in that form, you'll get a second form which is the form you'll fill in to actually log in.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 23 2013,04:46

Elizabeth, after seeing gordo's latest comments-off sermon at UD, do you still think that he couldn't be accurately labeled as psychotic and psychopathic by what he says on the internet? :)
Posted by: Soapy Sam on May 23 2013,05:05

Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,10:46)
Elizabeth, after seeing gordo's latest comments-off sermon at UD, do you still think that he couldn't be accurately labeled as psychotic and psychopathic by what he says on the internet? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's more accurately labelled as a pompous asswipe.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 23 2013,05:10

Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 23 2013,03:05)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,10:46)
Elizabeth, after seeing gordo's latest comments-off sermon at UD, do you still think that he couldn't be accurately labeled as psychotic and psychopathic by what he says on the internet? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's more accurately labelled as a pompous asswipe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That too. :)
Posted by: Febble on May 23 2013,06:09

timothya: are you still having problems?
Posted by: Febble on May 23 2013,06:18

I think KF is a classic example of what happens when you become so convinced that there is a conspiracy against your own views that you cut yourself off from any possibility of being persuaded by a counter-view.

Once you consider that all counter-views are, a priori, not to be trusted, then you have painted yourself into a corner.

It's not unique to religious people, or to the right.  I saw it happen on the left over the idea that Kerry had really won more votes than Bush, but that those votes had been stolen electronically.  Anybody proposing a counter-view was a priori considered a shill for Bush, and any counter-fact a fabrication.

Once you distrust all sources that tend to infirm your own conclusion you are stuck with it, whether it's right or wrong.  That's fundamentally why free speech and freedom of information are so important.  Not because they are prime "human rights" (freedom from hunger and poverty are more important IMO) but because when they are undermined, knowledge becomes impossible.  And knowledge is good.

[/soapbox]
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 23 2013,07:59

Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,04:46)
Elizabeth, after seeing gordo's latest comments-off sermon at UD, do you still think that he couldn't be accurately labeled as psychotic and psychopathic by what he says on the internet? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's correctly labeled, "An IGNORAMUS!!!!"
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 23 2013,08:41

Despite his multi-thousand word posts,  KF only has one idea that has any utility,  and that is his isolated islands of function. It's not an argument invented by the ID movement; Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin.

He does seem to be fascinated by gay sex, and he spends an inordinate amount of time dwelling lovingly on the details.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 23 2013,09:00

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,06:41)
Despite his multi-thousand word posts, KF only has one idea that has any utility, and that is his isolated islands of function. It's not an argument invented by the ID movement; Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin.

He does seem to be fascinated by gay sex, and he spends an inordinate amount of time dwelling lovingly on the details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin."

Do you know which page numbers?
Posted by: fnxtr on May 23 2013,11:33

Quote (Febble @ May 23 2013,04:18)
Once you distrust all sources that tend to infirm your own conclusion you are stuck with it, whether it's right or wrong. That's fundamentally why free speech and freedom of information are so important. Not because they are prime "human rights" (freedom from hunger and poverty are more important IMO) but because when they are undermined, knowledge becomes impossible. And knowledge is good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pithy. Stolen and disseminated. Thank you, Doctor.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 23 2013,19:06

Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,09:00)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,06:41)
Despite his multi-thousand word posts, KF only has one idea that has any utility, and that is his isolated islands of function. It's not an argument invented by the ID movement; Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin.

He does seem to be fascinated by gay sex, and he spends an inordinate amount of time dwelling lovingly on the details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin."

Do you know which page numbers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011....rrected >
Posted by: The whole truth on May 23 2013,23:11

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,17:06)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,09:00)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,06:41)
Despite his multi-thousand word posts, KF only has one idea that has any utility, and that is his isolated islands of function. It's not an argument invented by the ID movement; Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin.

He does seem to be fascinated by gay sex, and he spends an inordinate amount of time dwelling lovingly on the details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin."

Do you know which page numbers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011.......rrected >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for that link, but I don't see anything on that page about islands of function. Is it on a different page?
Posted by: timothya on May 24 2013,00:55

Febble

Getting a "Error establishing a database connection" error on  any page load inside the site (loads the home page OK). I seem to be authenticated correctly and have posting rights.

T
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 24 2013,01:57

I'm having trouble too. Everything is very slow and some pages load eventually but I am also getting "database error" pages (two versions - the one that displays if the site is being updated and a new one that seems to be generated by wordpress software) to the extent that I'm finding it impossible to post a comment. I am sure there are enough of us who would chip in to pay the cost of renting a better server.

ETA

Just tried posting a comment and lost the whole thing. Maybe I'll try on a friend's connection if I get chance later. They are nearer civilization and have cable.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 24 2013,03:15

A couple of hours or so ago TSZ was working for me but I just went there and I can't get past the main page to read any comments.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 24 2013,03:58

Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,23:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,17:06)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,09:00)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,06:41)
Despite his multi-thousand word posts, KF only has one idea that has any utility, and that is his isolated islands of function. It's not an argument invented by the ID movement; Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin.

He does seem to be fascinated by gay sex, and he spends an inordinate amount of time dwelling lovingly on the details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin."

Do you know which page numbers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011.......rrected >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for that link, but I don't see anything on that page about islands of function. Is it on a different page?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isolated islands is a metaphor for the assertion that a function can't be reached in small steps.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 24 2013,04:02

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,01:58)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,23:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,17:06)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,09:00)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 23 2013,06:41)
Despite his multi-thousand word posts, KF only has one idea that has any utility, and that is his isolated islands of function. It's not an argument invented by the ID movement; Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin.

He does seem to be fascinated by gay sex, and he spends an inordinate amount of time dwelling lovingly on the details.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Darwin expressed it in its most cogent form in Origin."

Do you know which page numbers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011.......rrected >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for that link, but I don't see anything on that page about islands of function. Is it on a different page?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isolated islands is a metaphor for the assertion that a function can't be reached in small steps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
Posted by: timothya on May 24 2013,04:30

Febble

I think you might have a database access or capacity problem (too many people trying to suck stuff out from the host system at once). The price you pay for running a popular site.

Of course I am happy to subcontract your site traffic at a small but perfectly formed price if I am allowed to co-opt TSZ's clientele into my International Research Project To Locate the Worst Joke In The World.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 24 2013,05:42

I just went to TSZ again and am still unable to get to any comments. I did notice that the comment count for the gordo thread has changed from 98 to 100 since I last looked.
Posted by: JonF on May 24 2013,07:22

And now it's "Account suspended". Probably for excessive bandwidth.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,07:50

Quote (JonF @ May 24 2013,07:22)

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


Trying to sort it out now.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,09:09

Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 24 2013,09:44

Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,09:09)
Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still, the "Account Suspended" error.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 24 2013,09:55

Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 24 2013,09:44)
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,09:09)
Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still, the "Account Suspended" error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the host is  hanging it could be a couple of days.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,10:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,09:55)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 24 2013,09:44)
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,09:09)
Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still, the "Account Suspended" error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the host is hanging it could be a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope not.  Last time something similar happened, they unsuspended it quite quickly, and when they do I will do the transfer.  The new host said it would only take a few hours.
Posted by: eigenstate on May 24 2013,10:56

Quote (Febble @ May 23 2013,06:18)
I think KF is a classic example of what happens when you become so convinced that there is a conspiracy against your own views that you cut yourself off from any possibility of being persuaded by a counter-view.

Once you consider that all counter-views are, a priori, not to be trusted, then you have painted yourself into a corner.

It's not unique to religious people, or to the right. I saw it happen on the left over the idea that Kerry had really won more votes than Bush, but that those votes had been stolen electronically. Anybody proposing a counter-view was a priori considered a shill for Bush, and any counter-fact a fabrication.

Once you distrust all sources that tend to infirm your own conclusion you are stuck with it, whether it's right or wrong. That's fundamentally why free speech and freedom of information are so important. Not because they are prime "human rights" (freedom from hunger and poverty are more important IMO) but because when they are undermined, knowledge becomes impossible. And knowledge is good.

[/soapbox]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the problem is more severe than you've cast it here; not only are KF's views a prophylactic against being *persuaded* by alternative/opposing views, they confound attempts to even engage and understand them, persuasion notwithstanding. As a member of an extended family "clan" with a good number of fundamentalist Christians in it, I get to see the not-persuaded-no-matter-what-you-say thing up close and personally, regularly. In many of those cases, though, these relatives are quite able to understand and engage on the subject.

KF is not able to actually engage on the merits. It's a "farther gone" case than just putting oneself beyond liability to persuasion or at risk of doubting one's worldview, etc.

Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 24 2013,11:37

The transfer may take a couple of hours, but it could take a couple of days for the new IP address to propagate to all the DNS zervers.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,12:06

oh lord, you are right.

Well, right now, webhostingpad have stopped responding to emails.  I will be glad to move.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,12:08

Quote (eigenstate @ May 24 2013,10:56)
Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks!  I may well call on you for that.  Right now, I can't get at the site at all, back end or front.

grrrr.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 24 2013,12:26

Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,10:08)
Quote (eigenstate @ May 24 2013,10:56)
Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks! I may well call on you for that. Right now, I can't get at the site at all, back end or front.

grrrr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have they said specifically why your account was suspended?
Posted by: eigenstate on May 24 2013,13:59

Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,12:08)
Quote (eigenstate @ May 24 2013,10:56)
Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks! I may well call on you for that. Right now, I can't get at the site at all, back end or front.

grrrr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, well my offer is solid; if I can help you with the infrastructure, I'm ready. I'm off for a long Memorial Day Weekend, so have much more time than I normally do for the next three or four days.

I'll PM you my email etc. if you want to let me help out.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,14:01

Yes.  There's a message on the site.  When I submitted the ticket they said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your account has been suspended because it was in violation of our abuse terms at < http://www.webhostingpad.com/abusete....ms.html >

All accounts will be only allowed to use 10% of CPU and memory and can not exceed a session longer then 10 min. This includes; but is not limited to; all database uses, email, cron jobs, and any other protocol sessions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then they said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are the steps you can take to avoid this from happening again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I said I would transfer to a different host.  But I can't get any further than that, and there are no support agents available right now.  I am emailing them every hour.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 24 2013,14:06

Probably a bad move to tell them you are leaving. That could trigger the sales team.

I once spent three days trying to cancel long distance service with AT&T. At the end they asked a question I didn't understand. i gave the wrong answer and had to start over.
Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,15:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,14:06)
Probably a bad move to tell them you are leaving. That could trigger the sales team.

I once spent three days trying to cancel long distance service with AT&T. At the end they asked a question I didn't understand. i gave the wrong answer and had to start over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's possible.  I've also phoned them twice now, and the person I spoke to completely unhelpful.

I'm still just waiting for a reply.  If they don't want my site on their server then they need to give me access so I can get it off there!
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 24 2013,15:45

Do you have any kind of local backup?

Or is the new host supposed to do the transfer? If so, they should have the clout to get ftp access.


Posted by: Febble on May 24 2013,15:55

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,15:45)
Do you have any kind of local backup?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some but not all.

I think eventually I'll get access, but right now, they are not responding to emails.

Apparently they are well known for this (duh).  It happened once before, because a plugin I had was consuming too much of their CPU.  But they did stay in contact, and eventually I tracked it down.  This time I can't even figure out what the problem is because I can't get at the cpanel!

I've been emailing them hourly.  The guy on the phone said I'd just have to wait my turn.

grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: The whole truth on May 24 2013,22:29

webhostingpad has a mighty strange definition of "UNLIMITED" and "UNMETERED":

"Any Web site that uses a high amount of server resources (such as, but not limited to, CPU time, memory usage, and network resources) will be given the option to reduce the resources used to an acceptable level, or upgrade its service to a VPS plan. WebHostingPad will be the sole arbiter of what is considered to be a high server usage level. Please see our abuse terms for a detailed listing of our resources. Any Web Hosting account deemed to be adversely affecting server performance or network integrity will be shut down without prior notice."


"All accounts will be only allowed to use 10% of cpu and memory and can not exceed a session longer then 10 min. This includes all database uses, email, cron jobs, and any FTP sessions."

So much for:

Hassle Free Hosting
Get MORE than what you pay for!

99.9% Uptime Guarantee

Award Winning Support
Posted by: Soapy Sam on May 25 2013,02:29

What bizarre customer service! Use us - we're great. Oh, hang on, you have written too many words and/or are being accessed too often. You can fuck off.

I'm sure they could simply cap CPU, rather than suspend.
Posted by: Febble on May 25 2013,04:11

OK, well I now have ftp access so I have a complete backup of the site as it last was.

Phew.

Now to transfer it to the new host....
Posted by: Febble on May 25 2013,09:15

Update:

Transfer to new host is ongoing, but nearly complete.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 25 2013,09:59

Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,09:15)
Update:

Transfer to new host is ongoing, but nearly complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yay! Will my penguin persist?
Posted by: Febble on May 25 2013,10:19

I have your penguin safe :)

Right now there are some missing files from the download.  This is a bit of a marathon.  We'll get there, I think.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 25 2013,10:22

Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,08:19)
I have your penguin safe :)

Right now there are some missing files from the download. This is a bit of a marathon. We'll get there, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will the url of your site be the same as before?
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 25 2013,10:31

Quote (The whole truth @ May 25 2013,10:22)
Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,08:19)
I have your penguin safe :)

Right now there are some missing files from the download. This is a bit of a marathon. We'll get there, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will the url of your site be the same as before?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


mjgskWVDWBVWDHDWJDHBWHDWBJWDHBNJDBWJBDJHBAJBSAJBJDBJFBJFEVHVFEJVFEJVFEJBFEJBFEJVBSCBVSHVSD
HFHVFHFEHVDSVDVDSHSDVDHVHFVHFEHEVHSVHVFHSVFSHSFVHSVHSFVHSHVSVHHVFSVFVWHFVEVFEYHFEVFVSHVHFS
HVVFSHVSHFSVHSVHFSVSF




FEBVFEVFHE.

 :p
Posted by: eigenstate on May 25 2013,10:51

TSZ appears to be back up and functional now.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 25 2013,11:49

Quote (eigenstate @ May 25 2013,08:51)
TSZ appears to be back up and functional now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still get the same account suspended page.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 25 2013,12:32

Quote (eigenstate @ May 25 2013,10:51)
TSZ appears to be back up and functional now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still the Account Suspended error.
Posted by: Febble on May 25 2013,12:47

I've transferred the domain, but it may take a while to propagate, and right now we are still missing some files, which webhostingpad says they have provided, but for some reason we can't download.

working on it....
Posted by: The whole truth on May 25 2013,12:54

TSZ shows up for me now.

ETA: I just went back to TSZ and found that I still can't get to any comments. I'm not trying to rush you Elizabeth, I'm just letting you know what I'm encountering so that you know what is working, for me at least.


ETA: Hmm, now when I go to TSZ, all I get is the account suspended page. Ain't the internet wonderful? :)


Posted by: Febble on May 25 2013,13:09

Quote (The whole truth @ May 25 2013,12:54)
TSZ shows up for me now.

ETA: I just went back to TSZ and found that I still can't get to any comments. I'm not trying to rush you Elizabeth, I'm just letting you know what I'm encountering so that you know what is working, for me at least.


ETA: Hmm, now when I go to TSZ, all I get is the account suspended page. Ain't the internet wonderful? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's useful, thanks.

I have a temporary URL, which gets me to the site, but not formatted.

Hope things will be sorted soon.
Posted by: franklin on May 25 2013,13:45

FYI: TSZ is back up for me and while I haven't tried to post anything I can see old and new comments.
Posted by: keiths on May 25 2013,14:34

Lizzie,

It seems like the old DNS entries are still propagating.

Did you change the entry at register.com to point to the new IP address, or are you using a new domain registration service altogether?

If the latter, then it's possible that the old and the new services are sending out conflicting DNS entries for your URL.  Which IP a user gets depends on which DNS entry was the last one received by his or her DNS server.
Posted by: Cubist on May 25 2013,14:49

Just tried to visit The Skeptical Zone. Alas, "tried" is the operative word, for I got the webhostingpad.com "Account suspended" page.
Annoying, but like everybody else, I'm aiming my annoyance at webhostingpad.com for their assholiness. "Unlimited" and "unmetered"? Yeah, right
Posted by: The whole truth on May 25 2013,15:02

I just tried again and all I can get is the account suspended page.
Posted by: Febble on May 25 2013,15:13

Quote (keiths @ May 25 2013,14:34)
Lizzie,

It seems like the old DNS entries are still propagating.

Did you change the entry at register.com to point to the new IP address, or are you using a new domain registration service altogether?

If the latter, then it's possible that the old and the new services are sending out conflicting DNS entries for your URL. Which IP a user gets depends on which DNS entry was the last one received by his or her DNS server.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first thing.

hooboy.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 25 2013,15:18

Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,15:13)
Quote (keiths @ May 25 2013,14:34)
Lizzie,

It seems like the old DNS entries are still propagating.

Did you change the entry at register.com to point to the new IP address, or are you using a new domain registration service altogether?

If the latter, then it's possible that the old and the new services are sending out conflicting DNS entries for your URL. Which IP a user gets depends on which DNS entry was the last one received by his or her DNS server.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first thing.

hooboy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could, at east temporary, change your DNS server to google's (8.8.8.8)
and if you are using windows you could open a command prompt and do the following command:

ipconfig  /flushdns
Posted by: The whole truth on May 26 2013,02:43

Elizabeth, just so you know, I'm still just getting the account suspended page.
Posted by: Febble on May 26 2013,04:21

That's a shame. I've got penguins again, but it took overnight for me.

I did the dnsflush flushdns thing. dunno if that helped.

Hey that google dns thing is awesome! My internet experience is transformed! Thanks midwifetoad!


Posted by: Febble on May 26 2013,04:31

In sort of fairness to webhostingpad they were quite good over the hack.  And also, the last outage was the domain registrar (register.com) not webhostingpad.

The big problem with webhostingpad that they have these rules about how much service you can have, with no way of warning you when you are sailing close to the wind.

Which makes it useless, really.  And they don't tell you how to fix it, and once your account is suspended it seems you go to the bottom of the support priority queue.

Presumably they won't refund my remaining year's subscription, which makes them not even so cheap.   And loads of downtime of course.  Hope that will improve now.
Posted by: Freddie on May 26 2013,04:31

What I assume is the old IP address is still being served up, even by Google's DNS. This is 95.142.159.2.

If you can determine the IP address of the new server, a quick workaround might be to use the URL syntax http:// a.b.c.d where a.b.c.d is the real IP address of the server (without the space after the colon as this site then interprets this as a real URL and formats it!)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
> theskepticalzone.com
Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address: 8.8.8.8

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: theskepticalzone.com
Address: 95.142.159.2

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



Might be worth a shot.
Posted by: Freddie on May 26 2013,04:35

If you now have access to the server you can find its IP address in your DNS cache:

ipconfig /displaydns

Then just post it here and we may be able to find the server using the IP
Posted by: timothya on May 26 2013,05:45

DNS must update more quickly in parts of the world where marsupials congregate.
Posted by: Febble on May 26 2013,06:08

Try: < TSZ >
Posted by: The whole truth on May 26 2013,07:23

Quote (Febble @ May 26 2013,04:08)
Try: < TSZ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still get the account suspended page. I also changed the DNS server for my internet connection to Google's public server but it didn't help.

One thing that seems weird to me is that yesterday I got to your site for a few minutes but then it went away again. I saw your latest response to gordo.


Posted by: midwifetoad on May 26 2013,07:25

Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:23)
Quote (Febble @ May 26 2013,04:08)
Try: < TSZ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still get the account suspended page. I also changed the DNS server for my internet connection to Google's public server but it didn't help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you do the ipconfig  /flushdns
Posted by: The whole truth on May 26 2013,07:31

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 26 2013,05:25)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:23)
Quote (Febble @ May 26 2013,04:08)
Try: < TSZ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still get the account suspended page. I also changed the DNS server for my internet connection to Google's public server but it didn't help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you do the ipconfig /flushdns
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just tried that and it didn't help.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 26 2013,07:32

Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:31)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 26 2013,05:25)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:23)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 26 2013,04:08)
Try: < TSZ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still get the account suspended page. I also changed the DNS server for my internet connection to Google's public server but it didn't help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you do the ipconfig /flushdns
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just tried that and it didn't help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, the truth whole. It works for me. Your DNS might still have to update.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 26 2013,07:35

I've run into this a number of times,  and sometimes you just have to wait.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 26 2013,07:35

Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 26 2013,05:32)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:31)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 26 2013,05:25)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:23)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 26 2013,04:08)
Try: < TSZ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still get the account suspended page. I also changed the DNS server for my internet connection to Google's public server but it didn't help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you do the ipconfig /flushdns
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just tried that and it didn't help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, the truth whole. It works for me. Your DNS might still have to update.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is TSZ working for you now?

ETA: I just noticed that you said it works for you.


Posted by: The whole truth on May 26 2013,08:33

I just tried TSZ again and it works. Even the comments appear to be working properly. The circuit board picture takes a long time to load but it was like that before the site stopped working.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on May 27 2013,03:48

Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,14:33)
I just tried TSZ again and it works. Even the comments appear to be working properly. The circuit board picture takes a long time to load but it was like that before the site stopped working.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? The circuit board seems to take the same time as other media to me.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 27 2013,04:00

Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 27 2013,01:48)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,14:33)
I just tried TSZ again and it works. Even the comments appear to be working properly. The circuit board picture takes a long time to load but it was like that before the site stopped working.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? The circuit board seems to take the same time as other media to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For me it takes a long time, while the other two pictures next to it load quickly. It probably has something to do with my prehistoric dialup internet access.

Otherwise, TSZ is working well for me now. I'm not sure it's a good thing though because I've been reading wjm's asinine word games and that's gotta be bad for my health. :)


ETA: took the s off of 'words'.


Posted by: JonF on May 28 2013,08:08

Quote (Freddie @ May 26 2013,05:31)
If you can determine the IP address of the new server, a quick workaround might be to use the URL syntax http:// a.b.c.d where a.b.c.d is the real IP address of the server (without the space after the colon as this site then interprets this as a real URL and formats it!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet everyone's in by now, but I just want to note that this seldom works. Especially with shared hosting (as I bet Lizzie had and has) where multiple sites live on the same server. The server doesn't know which site to serve up without the desired web site name in the "host header" part of the http request.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 29 2013,17:58

The words in the title of Elizabeth's new post at TSZ (Inside looking out) made me think of this song:

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....hChxzV0 >
Posted by: The whole truth on May 31 2013,10:48

At UD:

"TSZ explodes in anger and mischaracterisations over BAs recent post at UD: If My Eyes Are a Window, Is There Anyone Looking Out?"

Explodes in anger?

Speaking of "mischaracterisations".


ETA: The post with the title above is by gordo. I read some of the rest of his spewage and found this statement by him:

"If you look, this post replies to an accusation and an explosion of rage."

Actually, gordo is the one exploding with rage, as usual. He projectile vomited his same old fire and brimstone sermon, and of course he didn't leave out the Plato quote.

Hey gordo, you and the rest of the IDiot-creationists really need some new material, and a clue.


Posted by: midwifetoad on May 31 2013,11:30

KF's diatribe seems aimed at elzinga, who doesn't pull punches.

But BA77 is such a gerbil that I can't imagine him eliciting rage.
Posted by: The whole truth on May 31 2013,17:26

Elizabeth, at TSZ you said:

"I dont think KF hates people and I do think he is aiming for clarity [and] understanding. I think hes just not very good at it, and he is truly worried about the world."

I am astounded that you said that. gordo may not hate ALL people but he OBVIOUSLY HATES and constantly MALICIOUSLY DEMONIZES anyone who doesn't kiss his evangelical/fundamentalist/dominionist/christian/sanctimonious/psychotic/psychopathic/YEC/authoritarian/two-faced/cowardly/god-wanna-be/tyrannical/Hitler-esque ass.

And yes, I do mean all of that and more, and especially Hitler-esque. The only significant difference between him and Hitler is that gordo doesn't have the power or the guts to achieve that power, and gordo seems* to aim his hatred at 'some' different targets.

*I firmly believe, from extensively reading his own words, that if gordo had the power to do so he would exterminate everyone who doesn't obediently and totally worship him and thoroughly accept that everything he thinks, preaches, and dictates is divine, inerrant 'gospel'. And since Jews don't believe exactly the same religious shit as gordo, he would wipe them out too, as Hitler tried to do for the same reason.

Hitler was a monster but in some ways I think that Hitler was less of a monster than gordo. Hitler did actually inspire the building/improvement of some things that were positives. What the fuck has gordo ever done that was/is positive? If Hitler hadn't been in such a hurry to rule the world and had had less hatred, and hadn't promoted and commanded the negatives, he probably would have gone down in history as a great leader.

gordo is a mass of negativity, hatred, fear, bigotry, and arrogance. He obviously believes that he's a great leader, a messiah authorized by 'God' (just like Hitler believed), but gordo is a deluded, hateful nutcase, and history won't give a rusty fuck about him.
Posted by: Febble on May 31 2013,17:28

tbh, hatred isn't something I really understand.

Never have.  So I could be wrong :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 31 2013,17:36

I think if he were ever in a position of any real authority, his charges would be miserable. Mr. Leathers, for fucks sake...
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 02 2013,13:35

William J Murray wants to be in YOUR sig line:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do, however, believe I am an aspect of god cloaked in individual characteristics and limitations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: clamboy on June 02 2013,15:09

It is an objective, absolute, and inherent fact of the universe that William J Murray is a dick.
Posted by: Driver on June 02 2013,23:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 02 2013,19:35)
William J Murray wants to be in YOUR sig line:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do, however, believe I am an aspect of god cloaked in individual characteristics and limitations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Trumped by Byers: "We are made in God's image therefore we think like Gods."
Posted by: KevinB on June 03 2013,07:28

Quote (Driver @ June 02 2013,23:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 02 2013,19:35)
William J Murray wants to be in YOUR sig line:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do, however, believe I am an aspect of god cloaked in individual characteristics and limitations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Trumped by Byers: "We are made in God's image therefore we think like Gods."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is appears to be a classical example of self-refutation.
Posted by: Henry J on June 03 2013,22:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Trumped by Byers: "We are made in God's image therefore we think like Gods."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That brings to mind the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".

Henry
Posted by: sparc on June 03 2013,23:02

Quote (The whole truth @ May 31 2013,17:26)
Hitler did actually inspire the building/improvement of some things that were positives. [...] If Hitler hadn't been in such a hurry to rule the world and had had less hatred, and hadn't promoted and commanded the negatives, he probably would have gone down in history as a great leader.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is exactly the "if he hadn't killed the Jews" and "but he built the Autobahn" bullshit argument my fellow Germans used after WWII to acquit themseves from any responsibility.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 03 2013,23:37

Quote (sparc @ June 03 2013,23:02)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 31 2013,17:26)
Hitler did actually inspire the building/improvement of some things that were positives. [...] If Hitler hadn't been in such a hurry to rule the world and had had less hatred, and hadn't promoted and commanded the negatives, he probably would have gone down in history as a great leader.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is exactly the "if he hadn't killed the Jews" and "but he built the Autobahn" bullshit argument my fellow Germans used after WWII to acquit themseves from any responsibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....0E3Nql0 >
Posted by: olegt on June 04 2013,05:55

Quote (The whole truth @ May 31 2013,17:26)
I am astounded that you said that. gordo may not hate ALL people but he OBVIOUSLY HATES and constantly MALICIOUSLY DEMONIZES anyone who doesn't kiss his evangelical/fundamentalist/dominionist/christian/sanctimonious/psychotic/psychopathic/YEC/authoritarian/two-faced/cowardly/god-wanna-be/tyrannical/Hitler-esque ass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy on ALL CAPS, your truthiness. Breathe normally.
Posted by: The whole truth on June 04 2013,07:56

No wonder Louis left.
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,02:31

TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,02:31

TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
Posted by: damitall on June 05 2013,03:23

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but the cowards mostly dare not venture outside of the pit at UD, so the open-minded, intelligent folk at TSZ are short of targets.
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,03:30

Quote (damitall @ June 05 2013,03:23)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but the cowards mostly dare not venture outside of the pit at UD, so the open-minded, intelligent folk at TSZ are short of targets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the cowards are at TSZ.
Posted by: damitall on June 05 2013,03:44

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,03:30)
Quote (damitall @ June 05 2013,03:23)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but the cowards mostly dare not venture outside of the pit at UD, so the open-minded, intelligent folk at TSZ are short of targets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the cowards are at TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh,  don't be ridiculous!

The only reason the good and kindly folk at TSZ are not pissing all over the stupidities at UD is because we're all banned there for being rational.

It's what religions do best - censor all opposition.

And to call people like Gordon E Mullings and Barry the Bully Arrington "open-minded" is just an egregious denial of observed reality
Posted by: Ptaylor on June 05 2013,05:30

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,19:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why not just go to TSZ and air your grievances there? Tip: you may have people there asking questions you find difficult to answer; that is not getting 'beaten up'.
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,05:34

Quote (Ptaylor @ June 05 2013,05:30)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,19:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why not just go to TSZ and air your grievances there? Tip: you may have people there asking questions you find difficult to answer; that is not getting 'beaten up'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because; it smells like rotting eggs.
Posted by: Ptaylor on June 05 2013,05:45

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,22:34)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 05 2013,05:30)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,19:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why not just go to TSZ and air your grievances there? Tip: you may have people there asking questions you find difficult to answer; that is not getting 'beaten up'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because; it smells like rotting eggs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you try to deride the folks at TSZ as being cowards?

Edited unclever wording


Posted by: Lou FCD on June 05 2013,05:58

Quote (Ptaylor @ June 05 2013,06:45)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,22:34)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 05 2013,05:30)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,19:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why not just go to TSZ and air your grievances there? Tip: you may have people there asking questions you find difficult to answer; that is not getting 'beaten up'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because; it smells like rotting eggs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you declare the folks at TSZ as being cowards?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The projection is strong with this one, young padawan.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 05 2013,09:01

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,00:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by: clamboy on June 05 2013,09:11

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Today is Opposite Day!!!
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,09:58

Obama has just ordered TSZ to be shutdown, for being an Internet hate site.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 05 2013,10:27

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,09:58)
Obama has just ordered TSZ to be shutdown, for being an Internet hate site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very poor trolling. You should start slower and increase the intensity over time. You've cum in your pants straight away. Premature etrolluation. Amateur!

Edit for a *hilarious* typo ;-)


Posted by: Febble on June 05 2013,10:49

Cowardly in what sense, Thrinaxodon?
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,10:53

It's called, "Deception by Omission".
Posted by: Febble on June 05 2013,10:56

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,10:53)
It's called, "Deception by Omission".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still not sure what you mean by "cowardly".  Do you mean that I (or the people who post there) are hiding something they are frightened to show?
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,11:00

Quote (Febble @ June 05 2013,10:56)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,10:53)
It's called, "Deception by Omission".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still not sure what you mean by "cowardly". Do you mean that I (or the people who post there) are hiding something they are frightened to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your cowardly by not letting the people from the other side post.
Posted by: Febble on June 05 2013,11:08

Anyone can post! (except for a single person who used to post there, and whom I banned for posting a porn link).

The only thing is, as with most sites, you have to register, but there is no approval process.  Are you having a problem with registration?  If so, let me know here, sometimes things go wrong.

Cheers

Lizzie
Posted by: eigenstate on June 05 2013,11:30

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,11:00)
 
Quote (Febble @ June 05 2013,10:56)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,10:53)
It's called, "Deception by Omission".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still not sure what you mean by "cowardly". Do you mean that I (or the people who post there) are hiding something they are frightened to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your cowardly by not letting the people from the other side post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If any cowardice exists, it's to be found in the ID advocates and admins at Uncommon Descent. ID apologists at UD are both heavily committed to real ideological censorship -- not moderation to control hate speech, spam, verbal abuse, etc, but banning users and deleting content because it is *ideologically* offensive -- and also conspicuously unwilling to venture outside the safe confines of UD where the admins will tolerate their abuses, and protect them from any persistent ideological challenge.

At TSZ, the problem is the reverse. It's difficult to find IDers who are willing to venture out of UD and engage in an open conversation, to participate in a two-way exchange. William J. Murray and a couple of other sporadic posters (Blas?) show that it can be done, and all the better for the discussion at TSZ, but the real take-away from TSZ is that UD's denizens are a group that is only able/comfortable in a setting where they are protected from critique and challenge. TSZ would flourish all the more if the UD crowd had the fortitude to actually engage their critics.

Similarly, UD would flourish in the "it's interesting and educational" sense if it could find the courage to tolerate critics in its discussions. It would be a PR and political disaster for ID, as ID can't hold it's own in a fair fight between ideas. But it would be an interesting spectacle, and has been at times when UD had brief lapses in censorial and bullying responses.

Just look at the "doors". At TSZ, the door is wide open and the welcome mat is out. Even if you get way off topic, or personally nasty, even then you don't get banned, or your posts disappeared; you get those posts quarantined, moved to the side, but still available (which is wise, because it stops short of censorship, and leaves the "incriminating posts" available to be judged by the fair reader).

At UD, as soon as you become a bit difficult to deal with ideologically, you are banned. UD keeps a small cadre of "token" critics around, for appearance's sake, but these are few in number and tolerated because their criticism can be kept to manageable margins. If UD were to open up to all interested parties, they would be overrun with critics, many of them exceedingly polite and civil, but devastating in their critiques of ID and defenses of science against ID's attacks against it.

I'm not sure where you got the impression you did -- perhaps you are only familiar with TSZ and not familiar with Uncommon Descent -- but you have the facts backward. TSZ is as open and tolerant a forum as you are likely to find on the net.
Posted by: Thrinaxodon on June 05 2013,11:51

Quote (eigenstate @ June 05 2013,11:30)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,11:00)
Quote (Febble @ June 05 2013,10:56)
 
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,10:53)
It's called, "Deception by Omission".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still not sure what you mean by "cowardly". Do you mean that I (or the people who post there) are hiding something they are frightened to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your cowardly by not letting the people from the other side post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If any cowardice exists, it's to be found in the ID advocates and admins at Uncommon Descent. ID apologists at UD are both heavily committed to real ideological censorship -- not moderation to control hate speech, spam, verbal abuse, etc, but banning users and deleting content because it is *ideologically* offensive -- and also conspicuously unwilling to venture outside the safe confines of UD where the admins will tolerate their abuses, and protect them from any persistent ideological challenge.

At TSZ, the problem is the reverse. It's difficult to find IDers who are willing to venture out of UD and engage in an open conversation, to participate in a two-way exchange. William J. Murray and a couple of other sporadic posters (Blas?) show that it can be done, and all the better for the discussion at TSZ, but the real take-away from TSZ is that UD's denizens are a group that is only able/comfortable in a setting where they are protected from critique and challenge. TSZ would flourish all the more if the UD crowd had the fortitude to actually engage their critics.

Similarly, UD would flourish in the "it's interesting and educational" sense if it could find the courage to tolerate critics in its discussions. It would be a PR and political disaster for ID, as ID can't hold it's own in a fair fight between ideas. But it would be an interesting spectacle, and has been at times when UD had brief lapses in censorial and bullying responses.

Just look at the "doors". At TSZ, the door is wide open and the welcome mat is out. Even if you get way off topic, or personally nasty, even then you don't get banned, or your posts disappeared; you get those posts quarantined, moved to the side, but still available (which is wise, because it stops short of censorship, and leaves the "incriminating posts" available to be judged by the fair reader).

At UD, as soon as you become a bit difficult to deal with ideologically, you are banned. UD keeps a small cadre of "token" critics around, for appearance's sake, but these are few in number and tolerated because their criticism can be kept to manageable margins. If UD were to open up to all interested parties, they would be overrun with critics, many of them exceedingly polite and civil, but devastating in their critiques of ID and defenses of science against ID's attacks against it.

I'm not sure where you got the impression you did -- perhaps you are only familiar with TSZ and not familiar with Uncommon Descent -- but you have the facts backward. TSZ is as open and tolerant a forum as you are likely to find on the net.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. This website, doesn't delete any content (other than spam).
< http://members3.boardhost.com/john412....john412 >
Posted by: Febble on June 05 2013,11:53

Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,11:51)
No. This website, doesn't delete any content (other than spam).
< http://members3.boardhost.com/john412....john412 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool.

But nor do I delete content at TSZ, other than spam.

Did you not realise that?
Posted by: olegt on June 05 2013,11:57

This troll seems to have a chip on the shoulder.
Posted by: Febble on June 05 2013,11:58

And to amplify what eigenstate said: yes, I do move posts occasionally to a publicly visible forum (not deleted), but that's only when the rules are violated, and the rules are their primarily to keep both sides from "beating each other up".  Since the porn-poster was banned, most of the posts in "Guano" have been from the non-ID side, I think.

In any case, you can check because they are still there :)

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....e_id=57 >
Posted by: Febble on June 05 2013,11:59

Quote (olegt @ June 05 2013,11:57)
This troll seems to have a chip on the shoulder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm wondering if he/she has confused TSZ for some other site :)
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 05 2013,12:38

If anything, the policies at TSZ favor the creationists. Sal is impervious to reality. He looking to bolster YECism, facts and science be damned. He's very polite because he's fishing - he's trying to find weaknesses that he wants to use to cast doubt on science and thus promote YECism. And he will the quotemine and crow that "Dr. such and such couldn't answer my.." even if that's not what's happened -He's done this before, but the TSZ rules say we must assume he's acting in good faith.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 05 2013,13:01

Am I detecting a Markuzian slant to Thrinaxodon's posts?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 05 2013,13:06

Quote (fnxtr @ June 05 2013,13:01)
Am I detecting a Markuzian slant to Thrinaxodon's posts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not enough youtube. Plus Dennis gets off on us knowing it's him.
Posted by: eigenstate on June 05 2013,13:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 05 2013,12:38)
If anything, the policies at TSZ favor the creationists. Sal is impervious to reality. He looking to bolster YECism, facts and science be damned. He's very polite because he's fishing - he's trying to find weaknesses that he wants to use to cast doubt on science and thus promote YECism. And he will the quotemine and crow that "Dr. such and such couldn't answer my.." even if that's not what's happened -He's done this before, but the TSZ rules say we must assume he's acting in good faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, TSZ is cool because it's very liberal and generous, but isn't nave about it can be exploited as a platform (if a small one). I don't think Sal fools many people with his schtick -- anyone remember that guy Perry Marshall from "cosmic fingerprints" or some such that went to IIDB to run the gauntlet of skeptics? He got cut to shreds, but on his narrative, he emerged unscathed, and the critics by silence and critique just showed how right he was. IIDB was a cynical PR strategy of sorts.

That's Sal, and I think that's not hard to pick up. But I think it should be satisfying thing for the denizens of TSZ to be able to tolerate that kind of thing, annoying as it is. It's a natural "cost of doing business" of liberal community policies.
Posted by: Matt Icthys on June 05 2013,15:09

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 05 2013,19:06)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ June 05 2013,13:01)
Am I detecting a Markuzian slant to Thrinaxodon's posts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not enough youtube. Plus Dennis gets off on us knowing it's him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*delurks*

I presumed it was Arctodus, didn't he say he used to post as Thrinaxodon on another forum?
Posted by: socle on June 08 2013,11:01

< Robert Byers: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mental retardation is a form of drunkenness
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 08 2013,14:05

Quote (socle @ June 08 2013,11:01)
< Robert Byers: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mental retardation is a form of drunkenness
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


get that on FSTDT.
Posted by: clamboy on July 20 2013,13:18

Thank you, keiths, for your latest post on TSZ. I read that blog because I always learn something from the discussions.

I am absolutely certain, however, that William J Murray is a dick.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2013,21:58

Quote (clamboy @ July 20 2013,11:18)
Thank you, keiths, for your latest post on TSZ. I read that blog because I always learn something from the discussions.

I am absolutely certain, however, that William J Murray is a dick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, clamboy.

Yes, WJM can be a bit of a pain.  I do give him credit for venturing out of the UD echo chamber, though.

I can't figure out why the rest of the UDers are so fearful.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 20 2013,22:46

Quote (keiths @ July 20 2013,21:58)
Quote (clamboy @ July 20 2013,11:18)
Thank you, keiths, for your latest post on TSZ. I read that blog because I always learn something from the discussions.

I am absolutely certain, however, that William J Murray is a dick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, clamboy.

Yes, WJM can be a bit of a pain. I do give him credit for venturing out of the UD echo chamber, though.

I can't figure out why the rest of the UDers are so fearful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get that they should be afraid.  What surprises me is that they are. Most of them are so sure they're right, that from their perspective they should have nothing to fear.
Posted by: Woodbine on July 21 2013,03:01

Every time I read WJM blab on about how he 'chooses' to believe whatever he likes I die a little inside. Volitional belief is just as nonsensical as volitional digestion, or volitional liver function. But at the risk of going off on a rant I'll leave it be.

(Christ, I was sounding a bit like Gil Dodgen there.... :( )
Posted by: Merc on July 21 2013,03:11

Quote (keiths @ July 20 2013,21:58)
Quote (clamboy @ July 20 2013,11:18)
Thank you, keiths, for your latest post on TSZ. I read that blog because I always learn something from the discussions.

I am absolutely certain, however, that William J Murray is a dick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, clamboy.

Yes, WJM can be a bit of a pain. I do give him credit for venturing out of the UD echo chamber, though.

I can't figure out why the rest of the UDers are so fearful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do, Keith.

Their faith is WEAK. That explains all of their behavior.
Posted by: damitall on July 21 2013,04:37

Quote (Woodbine @ July 21 2013,03:01)
Every time I read WJM blab on about how he 'chooses' to believe whatever he likes I die a little inside. Volitional belief is just as nonsensical as volitional digestion, or volitional liver function. But at the risk of going off on a rant I'll leave it be...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank goodness! - I thought it was just me that thought he's a prat, so many people seem to take him so seriously
Posted by: Quack on July 21 2013,06:36

Quote (Merc @ July 21 2013,03:11)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 20 2013,21:58)
Quote (clamboy @ July 20 2013,11:18)
Thank you, keiths, for your latest post on TSZ. I read that blog because I always learn something from the discussions.

I am absolutely certain, however, that William J Murray is a dick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, clamboy.

Yes, WJM can be a bit of a pain. I do give him credit for venturing out of the UD echo chamber, though.

I can't figure out why the rest of the UDers are so fearful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do, Keith.

Their faith is WEAK. That explains all of their behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are damn right!
< Matthew on faith. >
Posted by: Febble on July 21 2013,08:30

I think that is true.

At least some IDers seem to want some kind of scientific endorsement for their faith.

I don't think that's true of Dembski, however.  I think he just knows that he's got a market for his product.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 21 2013,11:07

Quote (Febble @ July 21 2013,08:30)
I think that is true.

At least some IDers seem to want some kind of scientific endorsement for their faith.

I don't think that's true of Dembski, however. I think he just knows that he's got a market for his product.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski was just as eager as his fellow DI Fellows in 1997 to try and get an < explicit recognition that ID was scientific in nature >.

I haven't interacted personally with Dembski since the Greer-Heard Forum in 2006, so I can't speak to his most recent endeavors. But in my experience, I haven't had the feeling that Dembski was insincere. He certainly has an unwarranted self-assessment of his contributions and what those should be worth in term$ of money, but I don't think it is solely about the Benjamins for Dembski, or hasn't always been so.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on July 21 2013,11:33

Yes, sadly, the man who took his autistic son to a faith healer seems all too willing to wallow in the woo.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Febble on July 21 2013,12:17

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 21 2013,11:07)
Quote (Febble @ July 21 2013,08:30)
I think that is true.

At least some IDers seem to want some kind of scientific endorsement for their faith.

I don't think that's true of Dembski, however. I think he just knows that he's got a market for his product.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski was just as eager as his fellow DI Fellows in 1997 to try and get an < explicit recognition that ID was scientific in nature >.

I haven't interacted personally with Dembski since the Greer-Heard Forum in 2006, so I can't speak to his most recent endeavors. But in my experience, I haven't had the feeling that Dembski was insincere. He certainly has an unwarranted self-assessment of his contributions and what those should be worth in term$ of money, but I don't think it is solely about the Benjamins for Dembski, or hasn't always been so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I meant something slightly more generous.  I don't think Dembski is essentially insincere.  I just think he's theologically nimble enough to retain his faith were he to conclude that his inference was fallacious (I think he's even said as much).  It's easy enough to do.

But he doesn't have much incentive to do that, as he has a market of people who may be more needy of a scientific prop than he is.

And you do have to doubt the intellectual honesty of people who simply will not enter debate outside safe zones.

That's the glaring assymmetry in the debate (well,to an outside observer, knowing nothing of the actual merits of the argument).
Posted by: clamboy on Aug. 02 2013,21:36

Well, I declare. William J Murray is, indeed, a dick, but my stars, how much more He has revealed of Himself in the "Ball State" thread at TSZ: paranoid, nutzoid, conspirazoid, Illuminatizoid, etc. We can recognize him now as a complete crank, as well as being an utter dick. Yes, it's honest, but dull, and a little disappointing, if only because so predictable.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Aug. 02 2013,22:31

Bung and William.  

Wow, that got stupid quickly.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2013,17:03

keiths, you win another WWARDIRJ.
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 04 2013,17:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2013,15:03)
keiths, you win another WWARDIRJ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, thank you. I manifested that award, you know.

For curious onlookers: < Link >, < Link >. William is desperately trying to distance himself from his own wootard. I guess he likes the theotard better.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2013,18:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You dont have to consciously control every blade of grass or leaf on the tree the mind is a quantum machine that has infinite potential, and is connected via wave entanglement to everything in the universe. It can do things by magic, by science, by instantaneous creation, by cause and effect, by miraculous confluences of synchronicity. It can organize billions of cells and the activity or several organs in your body to accomplish minute-by-minute tasks; it can certainly organize the so-called exterior world with the same magical precision and non-local, faster-than-light ability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It can organize all of that to make you look like the biggest asstard or the planet, apparently!
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 04 2013,19:36

... or the planet, or on the planet?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2013,19:47

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 04 2013,19:36)
... or the planet, or on the planet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


either!
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Aug. 05 2013,03:21

WJM @TSZ - comedy gold! You must find out what my beliefs are right now before you can address them - and they frequently change, so best be quick about it.

He thrives on the ridicule, of course: a skilled troll. Getting atheo-mats to be snarky and exasperated is the game.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 05 2013,07:50

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 05 2013,03:21)
WJM @TSZ - comedy gold! You must find out what my beliefs are right now before you can address them - and they frequently change, so best be quick about it.

He thrives on the ridicule, of course: a skilled troll. Getting atheo-mats to be snarky and exasperated is the game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only winning move is not to play. - Joshua
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 06 2013,01:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2013,16:45)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You dont have to consciously control every blade of grass or leaf on the tree the mind is a quantum machine that has infinite potential, and is connected via wave entanglement to everything in the universe. It can do things by magic, by science, by instantaneous creation, by cause and effect, by miraculous confluences of synchronicity. It can organize billions of cells and the activity or several organs in your body to accomplish minute-by-minute tasks; it can certainly organize the so-called exterior world with the same magical precision and non-local, faster-than-light ability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It can organize all of that to make you look like the biggest asstard or the planet, apparently!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Truth Is Out Of Style >, by MC 900ft Jesus.
Posted by: Driver on Aug. 07 2013,07:04

I see Mung has turned up to deliver inanity and present a lesson on how not to do sarcasm.

Mung's mother: Put your coat on, dear.
Mung: Do you even know what a coat is?

Posted by: Soapy Sam on Aug. 07 2013,07:43

Quote (Driver @ Aug. 07 2013,13:04)
I see Mung has turned up to deliver inanity and present a lesson on how not to do sarcasm.

Mung's mother: Put your coat on, dear.
Mung: Do you even know what a coat is?

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


He's a card.

Elzinga: Defend Hoyle's 'junkyard tornado'.
Mung: Here's an entire book by Hoyle on evolutionary mathematics - refute it.
Posted by: clamboy on Aug. 18 2013,21:51

Goodness, those two threads on morality have driven William J Murray into heretofore unwitnessed fits.


William J Murray, this is going to be harsh, but it needs to be said:


William J Murray, go have sex with someone. That's an order.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 18 2013,22:07

Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 18 2013,21:51)
Goodness, those two threads on morality have driven William J Murray into heretofore unwitnessed fits.


William J Murray, this is going to be harsh, but it needs to be said:


William J Murray, go have sex with someone. That's an order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Preferably alive, and with their consent.

With IDiots you never know...
Posted by: rossum on Aug. 19 2013,03:51

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 18 2013,22:07)
Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 18 2013,21:51)
Goodness, those two threads on morality have driven William J Murray into heretofore unwitnessed fits.


William J Murray, this is going to be harsh, but it needs to be said:


William J Murray, go have sex with someone. That's an order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Preferably alive, and with their consent.

With IDiots you never know...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and not with yourself either.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 21 2013,09:50

Crosspost:

Is this true:

"And Alan Fox: Quote  
Thats nothing. He even deleted a comment of mine at TSZ in one of his guest posts! Jtais carrment scandalis!"

If so I hope his posting privallages were pulled.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 21 2013,11:09

Crosspost:

Read it while it's still there:
UD:
< http://tinyurl.com/m8twzde....m8twzde >

Same discussion over at TSZ:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?....?p=3024 >

EDIT: Dang long links!
< http://tinyurl.com/ke59eax....ke59eax >


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 30 2013,03:45

Mung loves truth. Shame he can't find it.
Posted by: KevinB on Aug. 30 2013,07:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 30 2013,03:45)
Mung loves truth. Shame he can't find it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that, or he's just not willing to share.
Posted by: k.e.. on Aug. 30 2013,08:36

Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 21 2013,19:33)
Yes, sadly, the man who took his autistic son to a faith healer seems all too willing to wallow in the woo.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's simple really...he didn't pay the faith healer enough.
His wish wasn't communicated directly to The Designers Appointments Calender App.
All he offered was an Acknowledgement in his next b$$k.


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

I would like to thank The Designer who gave us life and the Fall. Others whom I'm reminded  I must mention particularly and foremost my farther in law Richard von Shekelboon III who owns 2 shotguns. I would like to offer my sincere (honestly...Oh OK! MY SINCEREST [WITHOUT FINGERS CROSSED BEHIND MY BACK] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT) to Rev. Jesse R.D. Neck, a very special believer and faith healer beyond remorse paradigm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: rossum on Aug. 30 2013,10:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would like to thank The Designer who gave us ... the Fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At last, we know the True Identity of the Designer! It can only be ... Mark E. Smith.
Posted by: Driver on Sep. 02 2013,06:09

I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 02 2013,07:08

Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,01:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But apart from that, he's ok! Ah, no. I forgot the miracle of the herrings. Apart from that, however...
Posted by: Febble on Sep. 02 2013,09:13

Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a generous and sincere human being in my experience.

That marks him out from at least some regulars at UD.
Posted by: Mark Frank on Sep. 02 2013,10:01

Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 02 2013,10:09

Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 02 2013,18:01)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All VJ is doing is testing Foucault's Status Envy Theorem.
"If you want to feel wealthy live in a poor neighborhood".
Posted by: Driver on Sep. 02 2013,10:17

Quote (Febble @ Sep. 02 2013,15:13)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a generous and sincere human being in my experience.

That marks him out from at least some regulars at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I concede that "human" might mark him out.

Lots of people at UD sincerely believe God created "all the kinds". I've not observed any generosity from Vincent. Just politeness.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 02 2013,10:25

Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,18:17)
Quote (Febble @ Sep. 02 2013,15:13)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a generous and sincere human being in my experience.

That marks him out from at least some regulars at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I concede that "human" might mark him out.

Lots of people at UD sincerely believe God created "all the kinds". I've not observed any generosity from Vincent. Just politeness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he was that polite he wouldn't impose his endless blathering on the weak of mind.
Posted by: Driver on Sep. 02 2013,10:36

Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 02 2013,16:01)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is educated. He should know better! He does one sided "research" that verifies his misconceptions. He continues with his misconceptions after correction. He is an intellectual disgrace.

He is so ridiculous he posts things like challenges to the "world's 25 most influential living atheists" at Uncommon Descent without contacting them. Granted, as many as two of them might be aware of UD.

See when you ask others to respect him, it really annoys me
because reading books and a polite rhetorical style are neither worthy of respect in themselves, and the guy is a pompous reality-denying ass who displays the trappings of learning.

His politeness masks the lack of humility that contributes to making him such a poor academic, at least in the areas of biology and theology.

Yeah, I don't like him.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 02 2013,10:46

Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 02 2013,10:01)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gpuccio at least knows a few things. GPs problem is he disappears when the going gets rough and comes back later as if the previous discussion never happened.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 03 2013,11:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he disappears when the going gets rough and comes back later as if the previous discussion never happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds familiar.
Posted by: hotshoe on Sep. 03 2013,14:06

Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 02 2013,10:01)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I think Torley is every bit as scummy as any of the rest of them at UD.

Look at one of Torley's recent posts, the viciously stupid one about Clarence Darrow and rape, which of course Torley spins into an illogical conclusion that none of us can be moral humans under Darwinism.

And YOU replied to it, so you know which pile of garbage I'm talking about.

In my world, Torley choosing to post that earns em a permanent place on the shitwit list, if xe wasn't there already.

But, suit yourself ...
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 04 2013,00:53

Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 02 2013,08:01)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is never rude. He (almost) always provides reasons for whatever case he is making. He is extremely well read and does his research. That puts him head and shoulders above anyone else I can think of on UD. The closest to him is Gpuccio but he is not as tolerant as Vincent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's...< Politenessman! >
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 04 2013,00:58

Quote (rossum @ Aug. 30 2013,08:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would like to thank The Designer who gave us ... the Fall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At last, we know the True Identity of the Designer! It can only be ... Mark E. Smith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< There Is A River In Eden. >
Posted by: Driver on Sep. 15 2013,16:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There simply is no case at UD of the level of slander and hate fest as is currently ongoing at TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Gordon. >

Who is Gordy going to sue? Judge Jones?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 15 2013,16:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There simply is no case at UD of the level of slander and hate fest as is currently ongoing at TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Translation:  The IDiots are failing as badly as ever at TSZ.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 17 2013,23:05

Someone point Mung at this: < http://www.skepticink.com/smilodo....me-from >

He is fundamentally wrong, everyone knows it (maybe even he does), but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and the above link is a pretty good explanation (I think).
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 17 2013,23:36

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 17 2013,23:05)
Someone point Mung at this: < http://www.skepticink.com/smilodo....me-from >

He is fundamentally wrong, everyone knows it (maybe even he does), but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and the above link is a pretty good explanation (I think).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave him that link and he hasn't posted TSZ since.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 18 2013,06:21

< Lewontin! >
Posted by: Febble on Sep. 19 2013,03:08

Site is down right now.  I've pinged eigenstate, hope to sort soon.
Posted by: Febble on Sep. 19 2013,06:19

Back up.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 19 2013,21:55

Febble, I just don't understand how or why you put up with that lying asshole Mung, especially after the way he spits on you at UD.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 19 2013,22:58

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 19 2013,21:55)
Febble, I just don't understand how or why you put up with that lying asshole Mung, especially after the way he spits on you at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I don't really get about TSZ rules, either. Murray and Mung are always treating the opposition as if they are not acting in good faith. Murray seems to have left by now, disgusted at his sliminess, yet projecting it all against "Darwinists," but he neither acted in good faith--except to the degree that a spoiled brat does, unaware of himself--nor treated anyone else as if they were acting in good faith.

Mung's just an ass, of course, no better than Murray, if a little less full of himself.

Now I'm not complaining about how I'm treated at TSZ, or anything like that, because I got away with responding to Murray well enough, I think, but I wondered if I was within guidelines. However, if I weren't, Murray certainly wasn't, since vitriol and dishonesty seem to be his life.

I just don't know what treating others like they're acting in good faith means, though, when lying and spitting are about all that Murray and Mung have ever done over there, at least in the comments section. But then, it seems to be what every creationist dolt does at UD, and I don't know how anyone can put up with it.

KF just lies about people, voluminously, if unconvincingly. Going on forever with his fantasies evidently is how he prevents any doubts about his ignorance, vapidity, and above all, closed-mindedness, from entering his unavailing mind.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: hotshoe on Sep. 21 2013,22:47

Is TSZ down again? I'm getting "server not responding" error message ...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2013,07:57

I'm "Account suspended"
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 27 2013,08:05

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 27 2013,07:57)
I'm "Account suspended"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too. Looks like the whole site is down.
Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on Sep. 27 2013,08:06

Same here -- "this account has been suspended".  

I fully support Lizzie's moderation procedure, because it can be enforced fairly.   It's like the professor's ethics about friending students on Facebook -- never send a friend request, and either friend all the students who send you a request, or friend none of them.  (I chose "none", if you're wondering.)  

Anything can be said, unless it contains obviously vulgar language ("Jane, you ignorant slut") or genuinely offensive images.   I think that if the moderators were to take a heavier hand in policing Murray or Mung, it would be ugly.  But that doesn't stop the rest of us from calling them out on their bullshit, as long we don't violate the rules in doing so.
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 27 2013,08:51

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Sep. 27 2013,14:06)
Same here -- "this account has been suspended".

I fully support Lizzie's moderation procedure, because it can be enforced fairly. It's like the professor's ethics about friending students on Facebook -- never send a friend request, and either friend all the students who send you a request, or friend none of them. (I chose "none", if you're wondering.)

Anything can be said, unless it contains obviously vulgar language ("Jane, you ignorant slut") or genuinely offensive images. I think that if the moderators were to take a heavier hand in policing Murray or Mung, it would be ugly. But that doesn't stop the rest of us from calling them out on their bullshit, as long we don't violate the rules in doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm guessing either something mundane - quota exceeded (if the site has one) or KF has lodged a rambling complaint which they are forced to act on by suspending the account and investigating the allegation.

Maybe KF has hired barry to write them a nasty lawyer letter!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2013,09:00

KF's website forbids linking to it to support controversy, or some such shit.

ETA:

KF and Lizzie apparently are both under British law.


Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on Sep. 27 2013,10:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KF has lodged a rambling complaint which they are forced to act on by suspending the account and investigating the allegation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have trouble believing that Gordon would be that petty -- or pro-active.  But he has gone off into a deeper end of the deep end, lately -- not just in his assertions.  If you look at his rhetorical patterns, he uses the same phrases over and over more frequently than he used to.  He has more run-on sentences than he used to.   It sounds a lot more like a "broken record" than he used to sound.  

I suspect that there's some underlying psychological condition which has been getting worse over the past few weeks.  Maybe he's taken some action against TSZ.  But I still want to give him benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Driver on Sep. 27 2013,11:20

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 27 2013,15:00)
ETA:

KF and Lizzie apparently are both under British law.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Under new libel laws which we campaigned for, web site owner is not responsible for content posted by others where there is an open posting policy.

Of course, Barry or Gordon cannot sue me. Anyone who can is unlikely to, particularly as every word is documented and true. Dembski's apologetics book really does say those things. If they would like the UK publicity, I will gladly give them my details.

It's very easy to get a host to suspend a website though, unfortunately.
Posted by: Driver on Sep. 27 2013,11:27

Of course Gordon is lying over at UD about me calling Christians enemies of humanity.

My girlfriend doesn't like it when I call her that.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Sep. 27 2013,11:32

Quote (Driver @ Sep. 27 2013,18:20)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 27 2013,15:00)
ETA:

KF and Lizzie apparently are both under British law.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Under new libel laws which we campaigned for, web site owner is not responsible for content posted by others where there is an open posting policy.

Of course, Barry or Gordon cannot sue me. Anyone who can is unlikely to, particularly as every word is documented and true. Dembski's apologetics book really does say those things. If they would like the UK publicity, I will gladly give them my details.

It's very easy to get a host to suspend a website though, unfortunately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure if it is all that easy to get a website suspended.

For some years, I collaborated with a website against 419 fraud, and when we found an outright fraudulent site, e.g. a fake bank, a fake rental agency, or a fake employer, we had to go to a whole lot of work to prove it before the site got closed. Often we didn't get any reaction at all.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 27 2013,11:46


Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2013,12:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Under new libel laws which we campaigned for, web site owner is not responsible for content posted by others where there is an open posting policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Website owners are responsible for enforcing digital rights (assuming there is a copyright violation).

As an owner you can protect yourself from copyright infringement suits by posting contact information on the home page. If there is an alleged copyright violation, the copyright owner has to contact you and give reasonable time to correct the situation.

I only post this because of KF's rather bizarre copyright notice on his site.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 02 2013,16:52

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Sep. 27 2013,10:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KF has lodged a rambling complaint which they are forced to act on by suspending the account and investigating the allegation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have trouble believing that Gordon would be that petty -- or pro-active. But he has gone off into a deeper end of the deep end, lately -- not just in his assertions. If you look at his rhetorical patterns, he uses the same phrases over and over more frequently than he used to. He has more run-on sentences than he used to. It sounds a lot more like a "broken record" than he used to sound.

I suspect that there's some underlying psychological condition which has been getting worse over the past few weeks. Maybe he's taken some action against TSZ. But I still want to give him benefit of the doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair the quote reads as if "Kf has lodged..." when we have no evidence thet that is the case... the quote was conjecture.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 22 2013,00:34

In the absence of anything noteworthy happening at UD William J Murray is providing good entertainment over at TSZ. On a thread titled How does mind move matter the fun starts around < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(quoting petrushka)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then you are aware that there is no evidence whatever for psychic phenomena.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you support this assertion? I am aware of no such thing.

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


He goes on citing all sorts of woo sources while simultaneously using his usual WJM style of bafflegab trying to back his way out of the various corners he finds himself in. Great stuff, William, keep it up!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 22 2013,00:42

Murray revealing his acumen and voluminous scholarship:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also interesting to note how materialist ideological commitments have influenced how the bulk of physical science research is conducted, as the only area where blind, double-blind and triple-blind protocols are stringently employed is that which doesnt assume a materialist perspective psi research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's critiquing logic on TSZ. Apparently, knowing bullshit is the basis of his claim to such expertise.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Oct. 22 2013,02:04

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 22 2013,06:42)
Murray revealing his acumen and voluminous scholarship:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also interesting to note how materialist ideological commitments have influenced how the bulk of physical science research is conducted, as the only area where blind, double-blind and triple-blind protocols are stringently employed is that which doesnt assume a materialist perspective psi research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's critiquing logic on TSZ. Apparently, knowing bullshit is the basis of his claim to such expertise.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, psi research and clinical trials and forensic work and environmental testing and lab calibration and ... psi research is actually undertaken from a materialist perspective. It assumes something happens we can detect. Otherwise why bother?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 22 2013,06:13

My favorite part is citing Uri Geller as someone having psychic powers.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 22 2013,08:31

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 22 2013,12:13)
My favorite part is citing Uri Geller as someone having psychic powers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just knew you were going to say that!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2013,20:40

The pompous blowhard himself Barry Arrington has shown up at TSZ claiming UD has never banned anyone except pointless trolls. :D :D :D Of course by definition that included every single person who has pointed out the intellectual vacuity of IDiot claims.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 27 2013,09:00

Well, Barry is trying to milk his supposed death (and Resurrection) by cop. KN, *if* you did delete his posts

(1) You're not as smart as I thought
(2) You should voluntarily withdraw your moderation rights.
Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on Nov. 27 2013,09:10

Not as wise you had hoped, at any rate.  

I see the wisdom of your suggestion and shall do as you recommend.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 27 2013,09:14

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Nov. 27 2013,09:10)
Not as wise you had hoped, at any rate.

I see the wisdom of your suggestion and shall do as you recommend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It sucks because I think you're a stand up guy and I don't think you view things as cynically as me. But he pretty much telegraphed it:



That being said, his posts are restored and the 'offending' moderator, isn't. We'll never see the day that UD has that degree of integrity.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 27 2013,09:37

Let's see.

At TSZ we get KN remove Barry Arrington's off-topic posts which are then fully restored 12 minutes later. Barry throws a hissy fit.

At UD we get Sal Cordova not only deleting on-topic posts but modifying posts to make them say something different that what the original author wrote. Barry approves and doesn't utter a peep.

That should tell Barry something about his honesty level, but it won't.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 27 2013,09:40

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 27 2013,09:37)
Let's see.

At TSZ we get KN remove Barry Arrington's off-topic posts which are then fully restored 12 minutes later. Barry throws a hissy fit.

At UD we get Sal Cordova not only deleting on-topic posts but modifying posts to make them say something different that what the original author wrote. Barry approves and doesn't utter a peep.

That should tell Barry something about his honesty level, but it won't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ultimately somewhat of an own goal for Barry. We can now compare both 'banning' and 'moderation mechanisms'.

Its Democracy vs. Dictatorship.
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 05 2014,16:02

geez.

That's all I have to say.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 05 2014,16:19

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,22:02)
geez.

That's all I have to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wha'appen?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 15 2014,23:30

Anyone speak < Byersian >?

Quote (Neil Rickert @ Jan 14 2014)
I sometimes say that when people disagree in what is said to be a logical argument,the disagreement is usually about the premises rather than about the logic.I think you are making a similar point.

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


Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan 14 2014)
YES. Its the premises. Yet Im adding premises are so unknown that logic itself does not exist. or not as people use the word.
There is just profound accurate conclusions in the universe. Logic is a very special case dealing with this accuracy and so is almost useless in human thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: socle on Jan. 16 2014,00:16

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 15 2014,23:30)
Anyone speak < Byersian >?

Quote (Neil Rickert @ Jan 14 2014)
I sometimes say that when people disagree in what is said to be a logical argument,the disagreement is usually about the premises rather than about the logic.I think you are making a similar point.

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


Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan 14 2014)
YES. Its the premises. Yet Im adding premises are so unknown that logic itself does not exist. or not as people use the word.
There is just profound accurate conclusions in the universe. Logic is a very special case dealing with this accuracy and so is almost useless in human thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Profound accurate conclusions in the universe == Do. Still working on the rest.
Posted by: KevinB on Jan. 16 2014,06:05

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 15 2014,23:30)
Anyone speak < Byersian >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't speak it, you sing it to the Dance of the Cuckoos (the Laurel & Hardy theme tunes.)

Did Byers not recently demand the posting of a picture of a Human-Chimpanzee intermediate? He should have been invited to post a selfie.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 16 2014,08:56

He's merging with GG.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 24 2014,08:32

Who is the greater bullshitter (by metric tonnes of  bullshit per comment) - William J Murray or Gregory?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 24 2014,08:45

I've come to like William. I think he is trying to be honest, and I think his self-help theology is amusing.

His repetition is tedious, but he seems to be clarifying his position rather than obfuscating it.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 24 2014,09:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 24 2014,14:45)
I've come to like William. I think he is trying to be honest, and I think his self-help theology is amusing.

His repetition is tedious, but he seems to be clarifying his position rather than obfuscating it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like him better if he recognised that the atheist contingent is also trying to be honest.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 24 2014,10:41

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 24 2014,09:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 24 2014,14:45)
I've come to like William. I think he is trying to be honest, and I think his self-help theology is amusing.

His repetition is tedious, but he seems to be clarifying his position rather than obfuscating it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like him better if he recognised that the atheist contingent is also trying to be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Atheists should not ask for miracles.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2014,23:11

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 16 2014,07:56)
He's merging with GG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that puts an odd spin on the concept of "emergence"!  :p
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 27 2014,05:17

William citing scientific studies concerning atheists is a striking example of his hypocrisy.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 03 2014,09:32

Is there something in the ID diet that makes them insufferably whiny?
Posted by: KevinB on Feb. 03 2014,09:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 03 2014,09:32)
Is there something in the ID diet that makes them insufferably whiny?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too many cheese-and-wine parties makes them cheesy and whiny.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 03 2014,16:42

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 03 2014,09:32)
Is there something in the ID diet that makes them insufferably whiny?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's those crosses they have to put themselves up on all the time.  After that they're tired and cranky.
Posted by: socle on Feb. 08 2014,17:45

Gregory, growing closer to Jesus every day:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to give agent-hood status as a replacement psychological Solomon strategy without the Solomon. Ecclesiastes might help. It doesnt bite. Open and read, Mr. 70 yr-old. Why not give a new flavour a try. Your generation was sucked of its soul, as most sociologists who study the phenomenon globally would agree. The only way out: try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 08 2014,17:55

Gregory has a psychotic meltdown worthy of Kariosfocus:


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

looking for naturalism without scientism that Ive started and stopped four times now.

Well good. I honestly hope you find it and start again. Im well ahead of you and most other USAmericans on this. I went East.

Did you see the Opening Ceremonies in Sochi, KN? So much you dont know, or them. And its not my knowledge to possess to claim arrogantly, its theirs to humbly follow and learn from. Are you willing to do this? I know you want to, but will you, KN? You have doubts. Given.

Trying to get clear about any of this stuff is extremely frustrating!

Right, so call these dogs off my back cuz I got no more time for this filth and will disappear. Will you?

Yes, I read Pigliucci, White (you saw my review), and Wiseletier. And I teach it. Fascinating. But read Hutchinson and Artigas too; dont shy from the theists.

I wont say that the term is entirely useless.

Good, well fend off the scientistic hounds of TSZ then. But they dont pay you much attention as a mere (ex-Reform atheist Jewish) philosopher, do they? Youre a mere empirical pawn for them. sCiEnCe > SciEnTiSm

You seem to fall down willingly at the philosophy is dead trope. Stand up, KN. Get inspired. For Y-WHs sake! Learn more than the Sophists did. Find truths and adventures in the neo-post-modern age. You need not be as weak or eclectically destructible as you appear. Why not awake, arise?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then asks:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who guanod this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-41076 >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 08 2014,17:59

This is the second time this week, to my knowledge, that Gregory has confessed his love for Vladimir Putin.

About the 500th time he has castigated Amerika, despite the fact that TSZians come from all over the globe.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 08 2014,18:09

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 08 2014,17:59)
This is the second time this week, to my knowledge, that Gregory has confessed his love for Vladimir Putin.

About the 500th time he has castigated Amerika, despite the fact that TSZians come from all over the globe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Surely he's a better fit for UD?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 08 2014,18:13

They don't like him either.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 08 2014,18:26

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 08 2014,18:13)
They don't like him either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His poor fucking students...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 08 2014,18:57

Ideally, KF and Gregory would teach a course in comparative Tard. Perhaps Batshit^77 could provide AV / Youtube support and Joe could, er,  swear at people?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 08 2014,21:53

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 08 2014,18:57)
Ideally, KF and Gregory would teach a course in comparative Tard. Perhaps Batshit^77 could provide AV / Youtube support and Joe could, er, swear at people?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I imagine Joe as the Sam Kinison character from Back to School.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 09 2014,08:41

I imagine him as Flounder.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 09 2014,23:21

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 09 2014,06:41)
I imagine him as Flounder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ah ha ha.

Or:


Posted by: socle on Feb. 21 2014,21:11

Robert Byers:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even as babys we are already as intelligent as adults. babies are simply very retarded people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg, he misspelled 'babbys' twice!
Posted by: socle on Mar. 06 2014,18:41

Now this is comical. Gregory, talking down to Joe Felsenstein:


Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 06 2014,21:07

JoeG, Gregory, Gary G, Kariosfocus. Together in Thunderdome.
Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on April 02 2014,20:50

< Robert Byers >:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I dont agree there is such things as racism, anti-semitism, sexism homophobiaism, thatguyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Robert Byers, whose anti-Semitism at UD (and elsewhere?) has been well-documented at this site, doesn't believe there's any such thing.

I don't know how to elaborate on that, so I'll leave y'all to it.
Posted by: JohnW on April 02 2014,22:23

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ April 02 2014,18:50)
< Robert Byers >:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I dont agree there is such things as racism, anti-semitism, sexism homophobiaism, thatguyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Robert Byers, whose anti-Semitism at UD (and elsewhere?) has been well-documented at this site, doesn't believe there's any such thing.

I don't know how to elaborate on that, so I'll leave y'all to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It gets better:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i believe all human babies are perfectly equal intellectually at birth. A blank slate.
Yet i dont believe in the past or present that women are intellectually equal to men.
they should fail in any competition of smarts beyond mere memorization .
Actual intelligence inferiority.
yet i say this is because of the manly motivation to be accomplished as the bible says.
Women are less motivated even in these days of society pushing them to be accomplished.
Yet i would be called sexist and this meaning wrong/immoral for this sincere and true opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Finally, Byers gets something right. He would indeed be called sexist.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 03 2014,08:34

I'm not sure she's smart enough to be sexist. She probably just memorized some tracts.
Posted by: Driver on April 04 2014,03:52

I posted that Byers comment to fstdt.com yesterday. It is not his first entry.
Posted by: clamboy on June 12 2014,00:09

keiths's antics of late remind me of the scene in "Repo Man" when Otto and others are in a club. The Circle Jerks are doing a Vegas-style lounge lizard rendition of "When the shit hits the fan" and Otto remarks, "I remember when I used to like these guys."

William J Murray is a dick, still, and Gregory is much much worse, but keiths, please take this in the constructive spirit in which it is offered: you have committed the unforgivable sin, in that you have turned the once brilliant TSZ...

...it is so hard to say, but I must...

keiths, you have made The Skeptical Zone...

...boring.

Please, keiths, please, in the name of whatever love you still hold for that once-brilliant site, put a sock in it. At least for a few days.
Posted by: damitall on June 12 2014,03:09

Quote (clamboy @ June 12 2014,06:09)
keiths's antics of late remind me of the scene in "Repo Man" when Otto and others are in a club. The Circle Jerks are doing a Vegas-style lounge lizard rendition of "When the shit hits the fan" and Otto remarks, "I remember when I used to like these guys."

William J Murray is a dick, still, and Gregory is much much worse, but keiths, please take this in the constructive spirit in which it is offered: you have committed the unforgivable sin, in that you have turned the once brilliant TSZ...

...it is so hard to say, but I must...

keiths, you have made The Skeptical Zone...

...boring.

Please, keiths, please, in the name of whatever love you still hold for that once-brilliant site, put a sock in it. At least for a few days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't agree more.

TSZ is very disappointing these days, populated by people who should learn to know when to shut the fuck up

Has Febble abandoned it? - I see she's transmogrified into "Pingu" at TalkRational
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 12 2014,09:42

Quote (damitall @ June 12 2014,03:09)
TSZ is very disappointing these days, populated by people who should learn to know when to shut the fuck up
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! I resemble that remark.

I think my hope for TSZ was that we'd get dialogue with UD going. A failure in that regard.
Posted by: damitall on June 12 2014,10:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2014,15:42)
Quote (damitall @ June 12 2014,03:09)
TSZ is very disappointing these days, populated by people who should learn to know when to shut the fuck up
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! I resemble that remark.

I think my hope for TSZ was that we'd get dialogue with UD going. A failure in that regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I was being hyperbolic.

But I maintain that SOME individuals there post an awful lot of words to express some pretty unimportant ideas

And no dialogue with UDites was ever likely because that particular swamp is inhabited by dishonest pearl-clutchers, skirt-lifters, flouncers  and indignation-mongers who recoil at the very thought of voluntarily taking part in an honest, thoughtful, open-minded discussion in which there is a possibility that they might have to admit to being wrong. I did have hopes, once Joe got himself banned, but...

I did h
Posted by: Soapy Sam on June 12 2014,13:30

Hey, I learnt to shut the fuck up ages ago!

I think WJM is trying to bloviate TSZ into oblivion.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 12 2014,13:31

I will not disguise the fact that I am Petrushka at TSZ (and other places, like DU).

My complaint regarding Keiths is that chatting with him is no damn fun.

Defending a position does not have to be cutthroat.

Now three or four people have said this. time to pay attention.
Posted by: keiths on June 13 2014,16:30

clamboy, damitall,

TSZ actually wasn't created for your entertainment, so that is hardly a concern.

But since you are so disappointed with it, why not lead by example?  Ask for posting rights (if you don't already have them) and come up with some good OPs.  Make some scintillating comments that everyone will enjoy.

Or you can keep complaining, which is a lot easier.
Posted by: keiths on June 13 2014,16:31

I responded to petrushka/midwifetoad < here >.
Posted by: Quack on June 13 2014,16:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think my hope for TSZ was that we'd get dialogue with UD going. A failure in that regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You (still?) believe in Santa Claus?

My point being that it is virtually impossible for them to throw any of their ballast overboard and start believing anything we might tell them. Surrender to the Devil is not an option, so what else is there to expect.

IMHO, sad but true.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 13 2014,17:30

Quote (keiths @ June 13 2014,16:30)
clamboy, damitall,

TSZ actually wasn't created for your entertainment, so that is hardly a concern.

But since you are so disappointed with it, why not lead by example? Ask for posting rights (if you don't already have them) and come up with some good OPs. Make some scintillating comments that everyone will enjoy.

Or you can keep complaining, which is a lot easier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no dog in this fight, but this is a variation of the Gary Gaulin argument, no?
Posted by: keiths on June 13 2014,18:15

Jim Wynne:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no dog in this fight, but this is a variation of the Gary Gaulin argument, no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know, because I pay very little attention to Gary's thread.  I think it's boring, so I generally stay away.

Clamboy and damitall have the same option.  If they choose not to stay away, they can make TSZ better by contributing good OPs and good comments.

I would encourage them to do that.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 13 2014,18:24

Gary, when challenged, says "Show me your better theory to explain intelligence."  He can't seem to grasp the idea that a person criticizing his "theory" isn't obliged to produce a better one.
Posted by: clamboy on June 13 2014,18:52

Quote (keiths @ June 13 2014,16:30)
clamboy, damitall,

TSZ actually wasn't created for your entertainment, so that is hardly a concern.

But since you are so disappointed with it, why not lead by example? Ask for posting rights (if you don't already have them) and come up with some good OPs. Make some scintillating comments that everyone will enjoy.

Or you can keep complaining, which is a lot easier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


keiths - my first reading of your first line was in the spirit of, "Damn it all, clamboy!" Hee, I liked that.

Okay, I take your point, but please take mine: this is NOT about what I might have to say (if anything). It is about your recent behavior at The Skeptical Zone, said behavior having made The Skeptical Zone boring. Worse still, your behavior has narrowed what that site once was and (hopefully) could still be. In order to make my point, I must introduce a new paragraph:

keiths, I am sorry to say it, but I see very little difference recently between you and William J Murray in your posting behavior. If I were to post there, that won't stop you from said behavior.

I have praised your posts once before, and meant it, dude!!! But I believe that your recent behavior has, among other things, contributed to the loss of several other posters whose work helped TSZ to rock like DRI on their first album.

Humbly letting things go once in a while could really grease the wheels there - make that engine roar again, as it were.

(And of course I know TSZ is not there for my entertainment. As the kids are wont to say, "Duh." But my fear is that you are partaking in a grey cloud that will turn "The Skeptical Zone" into "The Dead Zone".)
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 13 2014,20:22

I have to ask, If TSZ wasn't created for the entertainment of its members,  what was it created for?
Posted by: keiths on June 13 2014,20:32

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 13 2014,18:22)
I have to ask, If TSZ wasn't created for the entertainment of its members, what was it created for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Discussion and debate of controversial ideas. Hence the word "Skeptical".

It's great when it happens to be entertaining, but that is a byproduct.
Posted by: keiths on June 13 2014,20:40

clamboy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths - my first reading of your first line was in the spirit of, "Damn it all, clamboy!" Hee, I liked that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, I take your point, but please take mine: this is NOT about what I might have to say (if anything). It is about your recent behavior at The Skeptical Zone, said behavior having made The Skeptical Zone boring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TSZ is for the discussion of controversial ideas, and sometimes that can be boring, especially when people become stubborn and won't concede points. We've all seen it, all over the Internet.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have praised your posts once before, and meant it, dude!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I believe that your recent behavior has, among other things, contributed to the loss of several other posters whose work helped TSZ to rock like DRI on their first album.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who do you believe that we lost due to my behavior, and what specifically do you think were the reasons?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Humbly letting things go once in a while could really grease the wheels there - make that engine roar again, as it were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By "letting things go", what do you actually mean?

For example, the current discussion < on the Scruton thread > came about, after a week of quiescence, because Alan wanted to know why I thought his views were mistaken. I didn't want to ignore him, and I wasn't going to patronize him by pretending that he was right -- especially considering what he is claiming: that the behavior of soldier ants doesn't require a genetic explanation. Are you suggesting that I should have pretended to be wrong? Or that I should I have ignored him when he asked about his errors?

To me, the problem is that Alan is refusing -- and has been refusing for a couple of weeks -- to admit an obvious mistake, and I don't want to lie to him merely for the sake of smoothing things over. It's been the same with petrushka/midwifetoad and Neil Rickert. I'm not going to patronize those guys or lie to them. So what, specifically, are you suggesting?

Also, it's interesting that I never got any flak about this when I was directing my criticisms at UDers. Are you sure this doesn't have something to do with the fact that Alan, petrushka and Neil are on "our side" of the ID debate? I'm not particularly "tribal", and I have no problem agreeing with the "other side" or disagreeing with "our side" when it's appropriate.

My feeling is that The Skeptical Zone is The Skeptical Zone, and that anyone's views -- including mine -- are fair game for criticism by anyone.

I do understand that some people have a very hard time admitting mistakes. If they were relatives, or in-laws, or coworkers, then it might be worthwhile to pretend that I was wrong, just for the sake of harmony.

But we're talking about TSZ, where discussion and debate are the entire point. I just don't see how it makes sense to coddle these guys or pretend to be wrong, any more than we coddle William and the other UDers.

An important part of maturity is being able to admit your mistakes, and I'm just not willing to tiptoe around the egos of people who haven't learned that skill -- especially not on a site called The Skeptical Zone.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on June 14 2014,06:14

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 14 2014,00:24)
Gary, when challenged, says "Show me your better theory to explain intelligence." He can't seem to grasp the idea that a person criticizing his "theory" isn't obliged to produce a better one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a mystery to me how that thread got past the first page. Dip into any random page and the same things seem to be being pursued. Matters to some, obviously.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 14 2014,07:52

Letting go means making your case and letting lurkers judge.

Nothing is added to your argument by declaring victory. Such declarations are supurfluous. Redundant declarations are annoying.

But your particular style makes it impossible for people who are in basic agreement subtle or contested issues in science. You quantize everything. Turn all the gradients into black and white.
Posted by: damitall on June 14 2014,10:53

Quote (keiths @ June 13 2014,22:30)
clamboy, damitall,

TSZ actually wasn't created for your entertainment, so that is hardly a concern.

But since you are so disappointed with it, why not lead by example? Ask for posting rights (if you don't already have them) and come up with some good OPs. Make some scintillating comments that everyone will enjoy.

Or you can keep complaining, which is a lot easier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevertheless it used to be entertaining, as well as interesting - and I've never supposed it was created "for me" at all.

However, I'm sure it wasn't created to be a battle-ground for egos, either.

I'm not a serial complainer, so I'll just leave it that MY opinion is that TSZ is now boring, and stay away.

I have no beef with anyone who finds it fascinating, good luck to 'em.
Posted by: keiths on June 14 2014,11:08

Quote (damitall @ June 14 2014,08:53)
I'm not a serial complainer, so I'll just leave it that MY opinion is that TSZ is now boring, and stay away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough. I think it's a shame, though. We have some really good discussions there. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? You can always skip over the exchanges you find boring.
Posted by: keiths on June 14 2014,11:10

petrushka/midwifetoad,

You're thinking about this too militaristically. When someone points out a mistake, it isn't a declaration of victory. When you admit a mistake, it isn't "groveling". It just means you got something wrong, and someone else noticed. It's a good thing, because it provides an opportunity for you to learn. Lower the hackles and allow yourself to be imperfect, like the rest of us.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You quantize everything. Turn all the gradients into black and white.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For example?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on June 14 2014,12:17

More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,09:36

Quote (clamboy @ June 11 2014,19:09)
keiths's antics of late remind me of the scene in "Repo Man" when Otto and others are in a club. The Circle Jerks are doing a Vegas-style lounge lizard rendition of "When the shit hits the fan" and Otto remarks, "I remember when I used to like these guys."

William J Murray is a dick, still, and Gregory is much much worse, but keiths, please take this in the constructive spirit in which it is offered: you have committed the unforgivable sin, in that you have turned the once brilliant TSZ...

...it is so hard to say, but I must...

keiths, you have made The Skeptical Zone...

...boring.

Please, keiths, please, in the name of whatever love you still hold for that once-brilliant site, put a sock in it. At least for a few days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the prolonged absence of Dr Liddle is the more significant factor in the decline in the quality and variety of posts and comments at TSZ. I hope she will find time and "head-space" to restore harmony and reinvigorate the principles by which she established it. her mission statement:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I started this site to be a place where people could discuss controversial positions about life, the universe and everything with minimal tribal rancour (pay no attention to the penguins….)

My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high.  In most venues, one view dominates, and there is a kind of “resident prior” about the integrity, intelligence and motivation of those who differ from the majority view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think many of us who post there have at times lost sight of this objective and I hope the atmosphere can become more conducive to broad discussion involving a broad cross-section of views.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,09:40

Keiths writes;



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, it's interesting that I never got any flak about this when I was directing my criticisms at UDers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmm, you have a point. Maybe the fact you got banned so regularly at UD was not altogether due to the moderation. Perhaps there was the same element of getting under people's skin.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,09:56

Keiths writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When someone points out a mistake, it isn't a declaration of victory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No indeed.

But when you say things like

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me, the problem is that Alan is refusing -- and has been refusing for a couple of weeks -- to admit an obvious mistake, and I don't want to lie to him merely for the sake of smoothing things over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That reads to me like a declaration of victory; as if the alleged mistake I am supposed to have made over the germ-line/soma distinction in eusocial insects is a settled issue and it only remains for me to withdraw this "mistake". I wonder if there is anyone reading this forum that could spare a few minutes to express an opinion as to whether they can spot the "mistake"? < Here's > the link to the exchange at TSZ.

Any input gratefully received. If it is apparent that I am mistaken about ant biology, I shall do the decent thing and leave India. No prizes for spotting the reference :)
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,10:08

PS Keiths

I should point out that I started being disenchanted with your posting persona when you went after Jeffrey Shallit.

< Here >
Posted by: keiths on June 15 2014,10:17

Alan,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe the fact you got banned so regularly at UD was not altogether due to the moderation. Perhaps there was the same element of getting under people's skin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, no question.  DaveScot absolutely hated to be wrong, and hated to admit it, even more than you and Neil and petrushka.  That's why most of us got banned at UD.

There's no doubt that we got under Dave's skin. Same thing with Barry.

Why follow those bad examples?  They couldn't admit mistakes, but that's no reason for you to follow suit.

Being a good skeptic means not just withholding your assent in the absence of sufficient evidence.  It also means changing your view in response to good evidence, even when that means admitting that you were mistaken.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,10:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also means changing your view in response to good evidence, even when that means admitting that you were mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Show me the evidence that I'm mistaken and I'll admit that I was mistaken. All the evidence I have seen so far is your assertion. Better still get someone else to confirm that I am mistaken.
Posted by: keiths on June 15 2014,10:44

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 15 2014,08:28)
Show me the evidence that I'm mistaken and I'll admit that I was mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been doing that for two weeks, Alan. You keep asking for the evidence, and I keep providing it.

< Here's the summary. >
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,10:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mistake #1 — You disagreed that the behavior of soldier ants requires a genetic explanation. I pointed out your mistake, and a week later you finally withdrew your statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I said that the genes in sterile caste workers are of no consequence genetically. Not passed on. How is this a mistake?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mistake #2 — You cited the sterility of the workers and soldiers as a reason that the soldier ants’ behavior doesn’t require a genetic explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See above!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mistake #3 — You claimed that there was no feedback from the genes in a worker or soldier ant to the reproductive success of the queen. Later you added an ETA to your comment acknowledging that there is feedback.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I claim that the genes in the workers are not in the germ-line. Why you think I should think that sterile workers are not an essential element of the extended phenotpye, I don't know.
Posted by: keiths on June 15 2014,11:05

keiths:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mistake #1 — You disagreed that the behavior of soldier ants requires a genetic explanation. I pointed out your mistake, and a week later you finally withdrew your statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Christ, Alan.  If it wasn't a mistake, why did you withdraw your statement a week later?

Alan:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why you think I should think that sterile workers are not an essential element of the extended phenotpye, I don't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you putting words in my mouth?  I explained very clearly what I think your mistakes are.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 15 2014,11:09

Any chance you guys could contain your pissing contest to TSZ?  

Thanks from all at AtBC.
Posted by: keiths on June 15 2014,11:18

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 15 2014,09:09)
Any chance you guys could contain your pissing contest to TSZ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll have to ask Alan.  

If he continues to make accusations here, I will continue to respond to them here.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 15 2014,11:38

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 15 2014,06:09)
Any chance you guys could contain your pissing contest to TSZ?  

Thanks from all at AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I rather would and apologise for these boring comments. I'd only note i was specifically mentioned in a comment and wished to correct the error therein.

Sorry for the disturbance.
Posted by: Henry J on June 15 2014,14:22

Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
Posted by: Zachriel on June 15 2014,14:23

While we're on the subject (and this does seem to be the correct thread).

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-17744 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths: Zachriel, you’ve been sloppy, hypocritical and dishonest in this thread.

Zachriel: Maybe we’re just slow, but we remain unconvinced of your original contention. {The Skeptical Zone Rule #1:} “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.“
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mung stood up for civility.

Alan Fox, we haven't read all your comments, but there is a subtle evolutionary relationship between worker ants and the queen. We'll post on that on the Skeptical Zone.
< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-50303 >


-
Edited to add link.



Posted by: Zachriel on June 15 2014,14:36

Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,14:22)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much better now. Thanks.
Posted by: Amadan on June 15 2014,15:00

Quote (Zachriel @ June 15 2014,20:36)
 
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,14:22)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much better now. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on your frame of reference.
Posted by: keiths on June 15 2014,19:03

Quote (Zachriel @ June 15 2014,12:23)
While we're on the subject (and this does seem to be the correct thread).

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-17744 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths: Zachriel, you’ve been sloppy, hypocritical and dishonest in this thread.

Zachriel: Maybe we’re just slow, but we remain unconvinced of your original contention. {The Skeptical Zone Rule #1:} “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.“
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Zachriel,

I did not make that statement lightly.  I understand that those are serious criticisms, and I would never have made them without pausing and thinking things through carefully and dispassionately.

Your behavior in that thread was actually quite a shock to me, because I had (and continue to have) a very good impression of you generally.  That thread was a glaring exception.

I'm happy to have readers judge for themselves.  Our discussion began here:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-16988 >
Posted by: Zachriel on June 15 2014,19:52

Quote (Amadan @ June 15 2014,15:00)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 15 2014,20:36)
 
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,14:22)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much better now. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on your frame of reference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We was framed!
Posted by: Soapy Sam on June 16 2014,07:47

Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 16 2014,21:04

Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 16 2014,07:47)
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, trying out a reply here; I will see where I end up.
Posted by: Henry J on June 16 2014,21:47

Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 16 2014,06:47)
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean better than the "Liberal claptrap" reply that I got from somebody here? :D
Posted by: Zachriel on June 17 2014,08:54

Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 16 2014,07:47)
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, didn't Fermat have a similar problem?
Posted by: Amadan on June 17 2014,18:58

Quote (Zachriel @ June 17 2014,14:54)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 16 2014,07:47)
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, didn't Fermat have a similar problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was only marginally important.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 17 2014,20:11

Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2014,18:58)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 17 2014,14:54)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 16 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, didn't Fermat have a similar problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was only marginally important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: fnxtr on June 17 2014,20:44

Quote (Zachriel @ June 17 2014,18:11)
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2014,18:58)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ June 17 2014,14:54)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 16 2014,07:47)
   
Quote (Henry J @ June 15 2014,20:22)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 14 2014,11:17)
More science please! (yes, I know, I could write an OP).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E = m c squared.

Does that help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted a *hilarious* riff on this which seems to have got completely mangled by a board glitch. Hilarious. I'm still wiping my eyes.

I found myself replying to a photo in the 'Wildlife' thread. Most peculiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, didn't Fermat have a similar problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was only marginally important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Screen, meet coffee.
Posted by: Kantian Naturalist on July 30 2014,14:59

For the curious, I've finally nailed down exactly what's wrong about design theory < here >.
Posted by: olegt on July 30 2014,15:27

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ July 30 2014,14:59)
For the curious, I've finally nailed down exactly what's wrong about design theory < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No way!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 04 2015,13:13

Sal is writing at TSZ, so lying at TSZ.  I'm posting mainly to save posts on the internet, since I don't know what's going to happen.  I don't really suppose that I'm staying within guidelines, since pretending that the liar is anything like an honest interrogator is impossible.  So, here's this post, where I respond to the single "quote" he makes from me that I never wrote at all:



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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stcordova

Glen Davidson:

douchebag Crocker’s

So say you who maybe doesn’t even know her or her students.She’s cared greatly for them and council girls who were sexually harassed and troubled.

All the time I’ve know her, I’ve never seen a hint of cowardice.She full well knew she could be shown the door for what she had to say in class.That’s not the behavior of a coward.

So, in this discussion you have labeled me as not caring about the truth, you’ve called one of my friends who is a caring teacher and honorable scientist a douchebag and coward.It doesn’t reassure me institutions packed with attitudes like yours are impartial and fair and will pursue due process.Even if I and Dr. Crocker and Dr. Sternberg are mistaken about origins, I don’t think it deserves the vitriol you’re pouring out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh please, why can’t you even keep quotes straight?

I didn’t write “douchebag Crocker,” you despicable misrepresenting pseudoscientist. Which I suspect you’d know if you cared about the truth rather than about trashing me with or without the facts.

If it weren’t the only quote in your entire post you could just say “mistake.” Here, it’s your main “basis” for your bigoted attack above, and it’s an absolutely false attribution.

Meanwhile, you’ve failed to give us any reason to suppose that you are consistent about crackpots taking over science, or consistent with the evidence, or at all concerned about maintaining integrity in science. Indeed, you continue to oppose science integrity, while whining that I note your lack of concern for the truth.

Now this falsely attributed “quote” more or less makes my point. Yet again.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 04 2015,13:14

And this one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
your comment is awaiting moderation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths:
Caroline Crocker lies through her teeth, as I discovered in 2008:

While she is declaring her innocence, images of her slides are being displayed on the screen. Check out what Crocker means by “impartial scientific evidence”:

Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6

If this is impartial scientific evidence, I’d love to see what biased creationist propaganda looks like.

Sal, do you think Crocker’s egregious dishonesty should be tolerated in a university classroom?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, that’s why I never bother arguing about whether she was fired for her creationist BS or not.

She should have been, whether or not she was.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on May 04 2015,14:43

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 04 2015,13:13)
Sal is writing at TSZ, so lying at TSZ.  I'm posting mainly to save posts on the internet, since I don't know what's going to happen.  I don't really suppose that I'm staying within guidelines, since pretending that the liar is anything like an honest interrogator is impossible.  So, here's this post, where I respond to the single "quote" he makes from me that I never wrote at all:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a good reason Salvador Cordova has the sobriquet "the human shit stain".   :angry:
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 10 2015,20:24

Mung has violated moderation rules by marking up someone else's post. When it was changed he began crying that TSZ broke its own rule of not modifying others posts.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on May 10 2015,21:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2015,20:24)
Mung has violated moderation rules by marking up someone else's post. When it was changed he began crying that TSZ broke its own rule of not modifying others posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then to top it off he went whining over at UD and lying about what happened at TSZ and why.

UD is perfect for clowns like Mung.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 10 2015,22:48

Cross posted from UD and TSZ:

Mung:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, over at TSZ, a comment of mine was deleted. The justification, if you can call it that…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just so we are clear: You inserted a comment into one of MY posts. I assumed it was you. I asked whoever it was to please refrain from doing so again. I did so because I don’t want my posts misunderstood.

Lizzie reinforced and generalized my request and your tampering was removed. Her aim was to restore my post to it’s original state in response to my objection. She has my (retroactive) permission to do so, and certainly would have known that at the time.

You have no standing in the matter. Just as one has no ownership of graffiti one sprays on others’ property, and no basis from which to complain when it is removed, you have no ownership of content you insert into others’ posts – and no basis from which to complain when a post is restored to it’s original form and your tampering removed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 10 2015,23:43

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 10 2015,22:48)
Cross posted from UD and TSZ:

Mung:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, over at TSZ, a comment of mine was deleted. The justification, if you can call it that…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just so we are clear: You inserted a comment into one of MY posts. I assumed it was you. I asked whoever it was to please refrain from doing so again. I did so because I don’t want my posts misunderstood.

Lizzie reinforced and generalized my request and your tampering was removed. Her aim was to restore my post to it’s original state in response to my objection. She has my (retroactive) permission to do so, and certainly would have known that at the time.

You have no standing in the matter. Just as one has no ownership of graffiti one sprays on others’ property, and no basis from which to complain when it is removed, you have no ownership of content you insert into others’ posts – and no basis from which to complain when a post is restored to it’s original form and your tampering removed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mung is a shitstain. Contemptible.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 11 2015,11:10

Winston Ewert showed up at at TSZ, not to debate his paper, but to non-discuss the disappearance of A. Smith at UD. He says he has no knowledge of or opinion about the disappearance.
Posted by: The whole truth on June 27 2015,21:34

In case anyone is reading the Moderation Issues thread at TSZ and is curious, below is a copy of my "second post a second comment, in which Creodont2 did what s/he was is banned for not saying he wouldn’t do, having done it several times and been warned, namely posting personal info."


Creodont2 on June 27, 2015 at 1:50 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Elizabeth,

“I beg to differ, creodont. You know perfectly well the narrow range of material that we redact, and I make that clear as well. Nothing is hidden or deleted except for that narrow range of material, and this is done transparently – the rules are there for all to clear, as are the redactions.”

Don’t you often claim that you don’t lie?

“But I will clarify something else: the reason for that narrow range of exceptions is that I do think those are morally reprehensible – so if you have a post redacted, then, yes, you can consider that I personally regard what you posted as morally reprehensible. Namely: posting porn, malware, or revealing the RL identities of someone known to us by their internet name.”

Oh come on, ALL of your rules and decisions are based on what you (and/or the other ‘admins’) feel are either morally acceptable, unacceptable, or “reprehensible”. And what makes you think that kairosfocus’s real name (Gordon Elliott Mullings) is not his “internet name” and is not “known to us”? How and where do you think that I found his real name?

Isn’t it interesting (and revealing) that neither you nor anyone else complains about commenters posting stcordova’s real name (Sal, Salvador, or Salvador Cordova) and News’s real name (O’Leary, Denyse, or Denyse O’Leary) or other real names that are not a match to the “internet name” that some people use here or at some, most, or all other sites? The ONLY reason that you and some others flip out about my using gordo’s real name is because gordo makes a HUGE, RIDICULOUS STINK about so-called ‘outing’ even though HE makes his real name (and a lot of other information about him and his family) EASY to see. Why the hell do you cater to that lunatic? He doesn’t even comment here, and never will because he’s a lying, sniveling coward.

“And it is because you will not give me the assurance that you will keep to those rules that your own posts are moderated.”

So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.

Tell me about the non-hidden transparency of this:

“Protected: Admin Discussion
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. Enter the password to view any comments.”

After all, you said: “At TSZ we do not hide or delete posts – everything is transparent.” and “Nothing is hidden…”

By the way, my “internet name” here is Creodont2, not creodont. Since you have a ‘rule’ about using the correct name, shouldn’t you set a good example?

 (Quote in reply)  (Reply)

Click to EditRequest Deletion (51 minutes and 6 seconds)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 27 2015,23:27

Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
Posted by: The whole truth on June 28 2015,04:39

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 27 2015,21:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like banny arrington.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 28 2015,10:27

Quote (The whole truth @ June 28 2015,04:39)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 27 2015,21:27)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like banny arrington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like Joe Gallien.
Posted by: rossum on June 28 2015,11:13

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 28 2015,10:27)
You sound like Joe Gallien.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<mode="Spartacus">I am Joe Gallien.</mode> :)
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on June 28 2015,13:08

Quote (The whole truth @ June 28 2015,04:39)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 27 2015,21:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like banny arrington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what your issue is. Atbc as little in the way of rules and allows the use of real names. In spite of this, the only real name I use is Gordon's. That is because I believe that he waives the right to anonimity when he falsely accuses someone of an illegal act.

But when I post at TSZ I don't use his name. Elizabeth's site, Rlizabeth's rules. It is common curtesy. If you disagree with the rules, either don't comment there or complain about them. But intentionally breaking the rules is just childish. Get some help.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 14 2015,12:40

Sal was over at TSZ saying how stupid Larry Moran is, so I challenged him to take his crackpottery to Larry's site.
And bless his heart, he did.

< http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015....5133532 >

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-73887 >
Posted by: The whole truth on July 14 2015,19:44

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 28 2015,11:08)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ June 28 2015,04:39)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 27 2015,21:27)
       
Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like banny arrington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what your issue is. Atbc as little in the way of rules and allows the use of real names. In spite of this, the only real name I use is Gordon's. That is because I believe that he waives the right to anonimity when he falsely accuses someone of an illegal act.

But when I post at TSZ I don't use his name. Elizabeth's site, Rlizabeth's rules. It is common curtesy. If you disagree with the rules, either don't comment there or complain about them. But intentionally breaking the rules is just childish. Get some help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet Elizabeth Liddle and others refer to and address people by names other than than their usernames at TSZ, including their real names, even though EL has stated that only usernames can be used. gordon mullings doesn't even comment at TSZ (and never will because of his cowardice) and he has no username there. EL caters only to gordo when it comes to so-called 'outing'.

Here is a copy of a comment I submitted at TSZ on the 13th, that was not posted, even though 'nothing is deleted at TSZ'. Some other comments of mine (and from other people) have also been blocked or deleted:

Elizabeth, you said:

"...we do not delete posts at all (apart from the narrow range of redactions specified in the rules, and even then, we don’t delete the post, just specific content, and if that’s the whole post, then the post itself remains, with the word in place of the redacted material."

You say that you don't lie, Elizabeth, yet you're lying. And yeah, I'm blunt about it because you ARE lying. You often pretend to be naive about various things, including what goes on here at TSZ (in the open or behind the scenes) but you are the owner and administrator of this site and as such you have no legitimate excuse for such pretending, or for lying about what goes on here.

Oh, and is "Mathgrrl" the username that Patrick uses here? Don't you say that only the username a commenter uses here is allowed, and that anything else is 'outing'? Why isn't the name "Mathgrrl" replaced by the word "redacted" in stcordova's re-posted comment and why hasn't stcordova been warned about 'outing'? Also, why is keiths allowed to re-post stcordova's "Dear Mathgrrl" comment without redacting the "Mathgrrl" part and why is keiths or anyone else allowed to post stcordova's name as "Sal", or "Salvador"? stcordova doesn't go by "Sal" or "Salvador" here.

You and others got all bent out of shape when I've said "gordo" or "gordon mullings"  (and banned me and deleted/blocked some of my comments for not caving in to your two-faced application of your so-called 'rules') yet you and others do not stick to your so-called rules. Take a look at stcordova's most recent thread. Look at all the commenters addressing him as "Sal". Even YOU do it, Elizabeth, even though his username here is "stcordova", not "Sal". And as I've said before, the ONLY reason that you don't enforce your so-called 'outing rule' when it comes to stcordova is because stcordova doesn't whine and make a huge stink about the posting of his name "Sal" or "Salvador", and you do cater to gordo's huge, ridiculous, whining stinks about 'outing' even though he doesn't even comment here and has no username here.

Unless and until gordon mullings actually does comment here (which will never happen because of his sniveling cowardice) and has a username here he doesn't even come under your so-called 'outing rule' and therfor anyone and everyone should be able to use his real name or any other name they want to when referring to him, especially since his real name is known to us by his own doing.

-------------------------


EL recently made a comment regarding "known to us". If you actually give a shit about principles maybe you can find it and other comments she has made that show her two-faced-ness when it comes to her so-called 'rules'.

My "issue" is that I don't like two-faced, lying bullshit, from anyone. Apparently, you and some others have conveniently adjustable principles.

And you might have noticed at TSZ that I'm not the only one who has a problem with EL's inconsistent, contradictory application/enforcement of her so-called 'rules'. There is plenty of bitching going on over there about it, for good reasons.


Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on July 14 2015,20:47

Quote (The whole truth @ July 14 2015,19:44)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 28 2015,11:08)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ June 28 2015,04:39)
       
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 27 2015,21:27)
       
Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like banny arrington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what your issue is. Atbc as little in the way of rules and allows the use of real names. In spite of this, the only real name I use is Gordon's. That is because I believe that he waives the right to anonimity when he falsely accuses someone of an illegal act.

But when I post at TSZ I don't use his name. Elizabeth's site, Rlizabeth's rules. It is common curtesy. If you disagree with the rules, either don't comment there or complain about them. But intentionally breaking the rules is just childish. Get some help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet Elizabeth Liddle and others refer to and address people by names other than than their usernames at TSZ, including their real names, even though EL has stated that only usernames can be used. gordon mullings doesn't even comment at TSZ (and never will because of his cowardice) and he has no username there. EL caters only to gordo when it comes to so-called 'outing'.

Here is a copy of a comment I submitted at TSZ on the 13th, that was not posted, even though 'nothing is deleted at TSZ'. Some other comments of mine (and from other people) have also been blocked or deleted:

Elizabeth, you said:

"...we do not delete posts at all (apart from the narrow range of redactions specified in the rules, and even then, we don’t delete the post, just specific content, and if that’s the whole post, then the post itself remains, with the word in place of the redacted material."

You say that you don't lie, Elizabeth, yet you're lying. And yeah, I'm blunt about it because you ARE lying. You often pretend to be naive about various things, including what goes on here at TSZ (in the open or behind the scenes) but you are the owner and administrator of this site and as such you have no legitimate excuse for such pretending, or for lying about what goes on here.

Oh, and is "Mathgrrl" the username that Patrick uses here? Don't you say that only the username a commenter uses here is allowed, and that anything else is 'outing'? Why isn't the name "Mathgrrl" replaced by the word "redacted" in stcordova's re-posted comment and why hasn't stcordova been warned about 'outing'? Also, why is keiths allowed to re-post stcordova's "Dear Mathgrrl" comment without redacting the "Mathgrrl" part and why is keiths or anyone else allowed to post stcordova's name as "Sal", or "Salvador"? stcordova doesn't go by "Sal" or "Salvador" here.

You and others got all bent out of shape when I've said "gordo" or "gordon mullings"  (and banned me and deleted/blocked some of my comments for not caving in to your two-faced application of your so-called 'rules') yet you and others do not stick to your so-called rules. Take a look at stcordova's most recent thread. Look at all the commenters addressing him as "Sal". Even YOU do it, Elizabeth, even though his username here is "stcordova", not "Sal". And as I've said before, the ONLY reason that you don't enforce your so-called 'outing rule' when it comes to stcordova is because stcordova doesn't whine and make a huge stink about the posting of his name "Sal" or "Salvador", and you do cater to gordo's huge, ridiculous, whining stinks about 'outing' even though he doesn't even comment here and has no username here.

Unless and until gordon mullings actually does comment here (which will never happen because of his sniveling cowardice) and has a username here he doesn't even come under your so-called 'outing rule' and therfor anyone and everyone should be able to use his real name or any other name they want to when referring to him, especially since his real name is known to us by his own doing.

-------------------------


EL recently made a comment regarding "known to us". If you actually give a shit about principles maybe you can find it and other comments she has made that show her two-faced-ness when it comes to her so-called 'rules'.

My "issue" is that I don't like two-faced, lying bullshit, from anyone. Apparently, you and some others have conveniently adjustable principles.

And you might have noticed at TSZ that I'm not the only one who has a problem with EL's inconsistent, contradictory application/enforcement of her so-called 'rules'. There is plenty of bitching going on over there about it, for good reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only others that are really complaining about moderation at TSZ are Mung and William. If you want to be lumped in with them, go ahead.

Liz never said that you can only be logged in under one name (I have two). She just said that you can't intentionally use someone's real name if they haven't provided it. Even though Gordo is a big bag of shit, he doesn't use his real name in his comments.

Yes, Liz and others use Sal's real name. So what? His username is his real name. And he often ends his comments with "Sal". In short, he is not trying to post anonymously.

You really have to get over this. You were banned at TSZ because you were the only person in recent times who has been as dickish as Joe. I hope you like the company.
Posted by: The whole truth on July 15 2015,03:38

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ July 14 2015,18:47)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ July 14 2015,19:44)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 28 2015,11:08)
         
Quote (The whole truth @ June 28 2015,04:39)
         
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 27 2015,21:27)
           
Quote (The whole truth @ June 27 2015,21:34)
So, in addition to never posting some of my comments even though they broke no so-called rules, all of my comments are NON-transparently, morally pre-judged by you and/or other ‘admins’, and if my comments (or parts of them) are morally judged to be tolerable they will be posted eventually. How nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically you behaved like a dick, wouldn't agree to not behave like a dick, and are now whining because your posts are moderated to ensure you don't behave like a dick again.

That about cover it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sound like banny arrington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what your issue is. Atbc as little in the way of rules and allows the use of real names. In spite of this, the only real name I use is Gordon's. That is because I believe that he waives the right to anonimity when he falsely accuses someone of an illegal act.

But when I post at TSZ I don't use his name. Elizabeth's site, Rlizabeth's rules. It is common curtesy. If you disagree with the rules, either don't comment there or complain about them. But intentionally breaking the rules is just childish. Get some help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet Elizabeth Liddle and others refer to and address people by names other than than their usernames at TSZ, including their real names, even though EL has stated that only usernames can be used. gordon mullings doesn't even comment at TSZ (and never will because of his cowardice) and he has no username there. EL caters only to gordo when it comes to so-called 'outing'.

Here is a copy of a comment I submitted at TSZ on the 13th, that was not posted, even though 'nothing is deleted at TSZ'. Some other comments of mine (and from other people) have also been blocked or deleted:

Elizabeth, you said:

"...we do not delete posts at all (apart from the narrow range of redactions specified in the rules, and even then, we don’t delete the post, just specific content, and if that’s the whole post, then the post itself remains, with the word in place of the redacted material."

You say that you don't lie, Elizabeth, yet you're lying. And yeah, I'm blunt about it because you ARE lying. You often pretend to be naive about various things, including what goes on here at TSZ (in the open or behind the scenes) but you are the owner and administrator of this site and as such you have no legitimate excuse for such pretending, or for lying about what goes on here.

Oh, and is "Mathgrrl" the username that Patrick uses here? Don't you say that only the username a commenter uses here is allowed, and that anything else is 'outing'? Why isn't the name "Mathgrrl" replaced by the word "redacted" in stcordova's re-posted comment and why hasn't stcordova been warned about 'outing'? Also, why is keiths allowed to re-post stcordova's "Dear Mathgrrl" comment without redacting the "Mathgrrl" part and why is keiths or anyone else allowed to post stcordova's name as "Sal", or "Salvador"? stcordova doesn't go by "Sal" or "Salvador" here.

You and others got all bent out of shape when I've said "gordo" or "gordon mullings"  (and banned me and deleted/blocked some of my comments for not caving in to your two-faced application of your so-called 'rules') yet you and others do not stick to your so-called rules. Take a look at stcordova's most recent thread. Look at all the commenters addressing him as "Sal". Even YOU do it, Elizabeth, even though his username here is "stcordova", not "Sal". And as I've said before, the ONLY reason that you don't enforce your so-called 'outing rule' when it comes to stcordova is because stcordova doesn't whine and make a huge stink about the posting of his name "Sal" or "Salvador", and you do cater to gordo's huge, ridiculous, whining stinks about 'outing' even though he doesn't even comment here and has no username here.

Unless and until gordon mullings actually does comment here (which will never happen because of his sniveling cowardice) and has a username here he doesn't even come under your so-called 'outing rule' and therfor anyone and everyone should be able to use his real name or any other name they want to when referring to him, especially since his real name is known to us by his own doing.

-------------------------


EL recently made a comment regarding "known to us". If you actually give a shit about principles maybe you can find it and other comments she has made that show her two-faced-ness when it comes to her so-called 'rules'.

My "issue" is that I don't like two-faced, lying bullshit, from anyone. Apparently, you and some others have conveniently adjustable principles.

And you might have noticed at TSZ that I'm not the only one who has a problem with EL's inconsistent, contradictory application/enforcement of her so-called 'rules'. There is plenty of bitching going on over there about it, for good reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only others that are really complaining about moderation at TSZ are Mung and William. If you want to be lumped in with them, go ahead.

Liz never said that you can only be logged in under one name (I have two). She just said that you can't intentionally use someone's real name if they haven't provided it. Even though Gordo is a big bag of shit, he doesn't use his real name in his comments.

Yes, Liz and others use Sal's real name. So what? His username is his real name. And he often ends his comments with "Sal". In short, he is not trying to post anonymously.

You really have to get over this. You were banned at TSZ because you were the only person in recent times who has been as dickish as Joe. I hope you like the company.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The only others that are really complaining about moderation at TSZ are Mung and William."

You obviously haven't read much at TSZ lately.

"Liz never said that you can only be logged in under one name (I have two)."

Irrelevant.

"She just said that you can't intentionally use someone's real name if they haven't provided it. Even though Gordo is a big bag of shit, he doesn't use his real name in his comments."

She didn't actually say that, but she has said other things that pertain to her so-called 'rules'. gordo doesn't even comment at TSZ. He uses his real name and other usernames (e.g. Gordon, Gordon Mullings, Gordon E. Mullings, kairosfocus, Dictionary, Gem of TKI) at other sites. Elizabeth Liddle focuses only on the username gordo uses at UD and caters to gordo's whining, lying, falsely accusatory bullshit about 'outing', and he spews his whining, lying, falsely accusatory bullshit on UD, his blogs, and on his Yahoo group page, NOT on TSZ. And it isn't as though his real name is hard to find on his blogs ("always linked") and elsewhere. His real name is certainly "known to us", because of his own doing.

WHY should anyone at TSZ be limited to referring to gordo only by his UD username, especially since he doesn't even comment at TSZ? WHY should anyone at TSZ cater to gordo's whining, lying, falsely accusatory bullshit on UD, his blogs, and Yahoo groups? gordo doesn't participate at TSZ so WHY should he be catered to there, while others who do participate there are treated differently? So-called 'rules' should apply equally to everyone, and they should make sense, especially on a site where the site owner (EL) and others strongly complain about the censorship, favoritism, blockings, deletions, bannings, and inconsistent, contradictory application/enforcement of the so-called 'rules' at UD and elsewhere.  

"Yes, Liz and others use Sal's real name. So what? His username is his real name. And he often ends his comments with "Sal". In short, he is not trying to post anonymously."

Irrelevant to my points. They are EL's so-called 'rules', not Sal's, and she has made statements pertaining to her so-called 'rules' that she should stick to. She and her moderators should apply/enforce her so-called 'rules' equally, and should not cater to one whiny, lying, falsely accusatory loon who doesn't even comment at TSZ and never will.

By the way, you're confirming what I've said about EL ignoring her so-called 'rules' and catering to gordo because he whines and makes a huge stink about 'outing', whereas Sal doesn't.

"You really have to get over this. You were banned at TSZ because you were the only person in recent times who has been as dickish as Joe. I hope you like the company."

You've got a lot to learn.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 15 2015,04:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You were banned at TSZ because you were the only person in recent times who has been as dickish as Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is not strictly correct. The member Creodont2 is suspended pending an undertaking to avoid "outing" pseudonymous blog denizens in comments. If Creodont2 were to give such an undertaking, the account would be reinstated.

Lizzie has explained < here >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is part of the founding philosophy of TSZ that no-one “deserves” to be banned. People are banned for one reason only: to ensure that we don’t get posts containing the very narrow range of material that is not allowed here, namely porn/malware (or links to); and material that gives the RL identity of people known to us by their internet names, without their permission (also known, I understand, as “doxxing”).

There are a couple of grey areas regarding that last one but I think I have made the boundaries clear, and will try to make them clearer still:

Firstly: If someone has made it clear who they are in RL, e.g. by linking to their publications, that is fine, and it is still fine for others to acknowledge the identity if their publications are being discussed. However, it is not OK to use that person’s RL name in personal attacks, which are against the game-rules anyway (“assume the other person is posting in good faith”; “address the argument, not the person”) but are not in themselves things I would ever ban anyone for. Such posts just get moved to guano, just as pieces get moved off a chess board. But if in breaking those rules, you invoke someone’s personal ID, that is not on, the reason being that I don’t want such personal attacks here to come up in a google search of that person’s RL name, as such things happen, as I know to my cost.

Secondly, if the person in here is not a regular poster here, but is nonetheless effectively party to the conversations we often have by loud-hailer as it were, at another site, then membership protections apply. In any case, in the case of kairosfocus, I think he is, or was, a registered member here, and you easily can’t tell in any case. So if in doubt, assume membership, either actual or virtual, and don’t link identity with internet handle. In other words, do not post the RL identities of people with whom our personal relations, as it were, are in their internet identities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 28 2015,10:40

joey g was 'permanently' banned at TSZ. joey has been banned at UD more than once. joey now comments as Frankie at TSZ and as Virgil Cain at UD. joey now has "contributor status" at TSZ, which means he can post an "OP".

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....omments >  

Elizabeth Liddle puts on her naivete' act, and also says that she appreciates Frankie's (joey's) contributions.

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....omments >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 28 2015,16:07

Allowing Joe G to post does more to discredit ID than a hundred posts in favor of evolution.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 29 2015,01:07

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 28 2015,14:07)
Allowing Joe G to post does more to discredit ID than a hundred posts in favor of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if that's true, allowing joey to comment and post an OP in spite of a 'permanent' ban at TSZ demonstrates that liddle's word is no good, and for her to say that she appreciates frankie's (joey's) contributions is just plain nuts. Of course arrington is an unashamedly unscrupulous lump of shyster shit who would say and do anything to force theocratic/autocratic tyranny on as many victims as possible, so it's not surprising that he allows YEC joey to spew IDiocy at UD after being banned multiple times, but liddle, who portrays herself as rational and principled, should live up to that portrayal, especially when it's easy to do so.

Her naivete' act is bullshit too.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 29 2015,07:09

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 28 2015,20:07)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 28 2015,14:07)
Allowing Joe G to post does more to discredit ID than a hundred posts in favor of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if that's true, allowing joey to comment and post an OP in spite of a 'permanent' ban at TSZ demonstrates that liddle's word is no good, and for her to say that she appreciates frankie's (joey's) contributions is just plain nuts. Of course arrington is an unashamedly unscrupulous lump of shyster shit who would say and do anything to force theocratic/autocratic tyranny on as many victims as possible, so it's not surprising that he allows YEC joey to spew IDiocy at UD after being banned multiple times, but liddle, who portrays herself as rational and principled, should live up to that portrayal, especially when it's easy to do so.

Her naivete' act is bullshit too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi The whole truth

I noticed your complaint about your unfair treatment in comparison to Joe G. Fair enough, you now have the same membership status that he does.

If you'd like to confirm you will adhere to TSZ policy on "outing" in future, we can also lift the premoderation restriction.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 29 2015,11:53

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2015,05:09)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 28 2015,20:07)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 28 2015,14:07)
Allowing Joe G to post does more to discredit ID than a hundred posts in favor of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if that's true, allowing joey to comment and post an OP in spite of a 'permanent' ban at TSZ demonstrates that liddle's word is no good, and for her to say that she appreciates frankie's (joey's) contributions is just plain nuts. Of course arrington is an unashamedly unscrupulous lump of shyster shit who would say and do anything to force theocratic/autocratic tyranny on as many victims as possible, so it's not surprising that he allows YEC joey to spew IDiocy at UD after being banned multiple times, but liddle, who portrays herself as rational and principled, should live up to that portrayal, especially when it's easy to do so.

Her naivete' act is bullshit too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi The whole truth

I noticed your complaint about your unfair treatment in comparison to Joe G. Fair enough, you now have the same membership status that he does.

If you'd like to confirm you will adhere to TSZ policy on "outing" in future, we can also lift the premoderation restriction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't ask for a change of status at TSZ and changing my status at TSZ does nothing to address my points about joey and EL.

I didn't 'out' gordon e. mullings. gordon e. mullings 'outs' gordon e. mullings at his "always linked", etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 29 2015,12:49

The whole truth writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't ask for a change of status at TSZ and changing my status at TSZ does nothing to address my points about joey and EL.

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

It does give you the opportunity to raise them there.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't 'out' gordon e. mullings. gordon e. mullings 'outs' gordon e. mullings at his "always linked", etc., etc., etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 30 2015,13:22

I think there's a possibility that TSZ could beat UD in traffic within a few years.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 30 2015,13:36

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 30 2015,13:22)
I think there's a possibility that TSZ could beat UD in traffic within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until Barry Arrogant grants another amnesty to up his site hit rate and increase his ad revenue.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 30 2015,15:02

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 30 2015,11:36)
Until Barry Arrogant grants another amnesty to up his site hit rate and increase his ad revenue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see any reason to look at uncommon descent at all. The only people posting their ID crap are insane, and pointless to pay attention to anymore.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 30 2015,15:17

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 30 2015,13:36)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 30 2015,13:22)
I think there's a possibility that TSZ could beat UD in traffic within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until Barry Arrogant grants another amnesty to up his site hit rate and increase his ad revenue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He has a back link on every page:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
©Uncommon Descent, Inc., Barry K. Arrington, President

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



Which goes to

< http://www.bankruptcylawyer4denver.com/....ver.com >


So to some degree its an SEO trick for Barry. I doubt he wants UDers to connect with him through "bankruptcylawyer4denver".
Posted by: Learned Hand on Nov. 30 2015,15:28

Whoa, you aren't kidding about the SEO angle. I looked at his website, which is pretty good for a solo practitioner--lots of content, regular updates, and only moderately awful stock photography. The "blog" section would have struck me as bizarre if I hadn't just read your comment. For example, there's a post about adversarial proceedings that reads like a Colorado road map. In just a few paragraphs, it looks like a dozen or more references to "Colorado" and/or a laundry list of local towns. "Trustees in Centennial and Greenwood Village can file adversary proceedings for various reasons," for example.

Bankruptcy is a federal affair. It doesn't matter where you are in the United States, as long as you're in the United States. All those little local references are meaningless. (That's not to say there aren't good reasons to hire a local attorney for something like bankruptcy, only that "trustees in Centennial" aren't fundamentally different from trustees anywhere else in the eyes of the federal bankruptcy courts.)

Is that sort of thing an SEO trick? Is the idea to make "bankruptcy lawyer Greenwood Village" more likely to point to that page?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 30 2015,16:00

Yes and No. See number 8:

< https://blog.monitorbacklinks.com/seo....eliness >
Posted by: Learned Hand on Nov. 30 2015,16:56

That list makes me feel old. But thanks, it's interesting information.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 30 2015,16:59

From Barry's web site:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am now a Colorado Christian bankruptcy lawyer / attorney in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora, seeking excellence in all I do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that mean that he is a Christian lawyer who handles bankruptcy, or a lawyer that handles a christian bankruptcy? I think that there would be far more business with the latter.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 30 2015,21:38

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2015,00:59)
From Barry's web site:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am now a Colorado Christian bankruptcy lawyer / attorney in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora, seeking excellence in all I do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that mean that he is a Christian lawyer who handles bankruptcy, or a lawyer that handles a christian bankruptcy? I think that there would be far more business with the latter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC Barry quoted some biblical passage about debt to justify his marketing campaign. So the second is true.
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 01 2015,08:55

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2015,10:49)
The whole truth writes:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't ask for a change of status at TSZ and changing my status at TSZ does nothing to address my points about joey and EL.

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

It does give you the opportunity to raise them there.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't 'out' gordon e. mullings. gordon e. mullings 'outs' gordon e. mullings at his "always linked", etc., etc., etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if I promise to not break a rule that I didn't break in the first place, and that other people (including 'moderators') at TSZ break without being warned, banned, and 'premoderated', then you, EL, Neil, Patrick ("we") will de-ban me and "lift the premoderation restriction", eh? How nice. What about johnnyb? Is he going to go along with the rest of you (ask me if I give a fuck)?

"The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change."

The "outing" rule was already changed, the "outing" rule was not and is not being enforced as written, I did not 'out' gordon e. mullings, and your saying that the "outing" rule is not going to change does not address my points.

By the way, is it "outing" at TSZ when someone reveals someone else's place of employment, etc., in such a way as this:

"Winston Ewert, a software engineer at Google, Inc., indicates in a new paper that he is affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which is funded primarily by the Discovery Institute. That, in my mind, makes him a public person. Sad to say, the gloves will be coming off. But not in this thread. Here I stick to exposing the most obvious of errors in the claim that the Conservation of Information Theorem applies to nature."?
 
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 01 2015,09:14

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 01 2015,08:55)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2015,10:49)
The whole truth writes:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't ask for a change of status at TSZ and changing my status at TSZ does nothing to address my points about joey and EL.

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

It does give you the opportunity to raise them there.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't 'out' gordon e. mullings. gordon e. mullings 'outs' gordon e. mullings at his "always linked", etc., etc., etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if I promise to not break a rule that I didn't break in the first place, and that other people (including 'moderators') at TSZ break without being warned, banned, and 'premoderated', then you, EL, Neil, Patrick ("we") will de-ban me and "lift the premoderation restriction", eh? How nice. What about johnnyb? Is he going to go along with the rest of you (ask me if I give a fuck)?

"The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change."

The "outing" rule was already changed, the "outing" rule was not and is not being enforced as written, I did not 'out' gordon e. mullings, and your saying that the "outing" rule is not going to change does not address my points.

By the way, is it "outing" at TSZ when someone reveals someone else's place of employment, etc., in such a way as this:

"Winston Ewert, a software engineer at Google, Inc., indicates in a new paper that he is affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which is funded primarily by the Discovery Institute. That, in my mind, makes him a public person. Sad to say, the gloves will be coming off. But not in this thread. Here I stick to exposing the most obvious of errors in the claim that the Conservation of Information Theorem applies to nature."?
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TWT, I really don't know what your issue is. atbc does not have an outing rule (that I know of) so you can do so to your heart's content here. TSZ does have an outing rule, and it is very simple. If a person uses a pseudonym, use the same pseudonym when responding to that person, or when referring to them. Simple.

At TSZ, you are a guest in someone else's house. Behave accordingly or don't accept the invitation.

I try to follow the rules of the blog I post on, admittedly not always successfully. I even do so at UD. Which is easy because I have yet to figure out what their rules are.
Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 01 2015,10:22

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2015,07:14)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 01 2015,08:55)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2015,10:49)
The whole truth writes:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't ask for a change of status at TSZ and changing my status at TSZ does nothing to address my points about joey and EL.

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

It does give you the opportunity to raise them there.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't 'out' gordon e. mullings. gordon e. mullings 'outs' gordon e. mullings at his "always linked", etc., etc., etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if I promise to not break a rule that I didn't break in the first place, and that other people (including 'moderators') at TSZ break without being warned, banned, and 'premoderated', then you, EL, Neil, Patrick ("we") will de-ban me and "lift the premoderation restriction", eh? How nice. What about johnnyb? Is he going to go along with the rest of you (ask me if I give a fuck)?

"The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change."

The "outing" rule was already changed, the "outing" rule was not and is not being enforced as written, I did not 'out' gordon e. mullings, and your saying that the "outing" rule is not going to change does not address my points.

By the way, is it "outing" at TSZ when someone reveals someone else's place of employment, etc., in such a way as this:

"Winston Ewert, a software engineer at Google, Inc., indicates in a new paper that he is affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which is funded primarily by the Discovery Institute. That, in my mind, makes him a public person. Sad to say, the gloves will be coming off. But not in this thread. Here I stick to exposing the most obvious of errors in the claim that the Conservation of Information Theorem applies to nature."?
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TWT, I really don't know what your issue is. atbc does not have an outing rule (that I know of) so you can do so to your heart's content here. TSZ does have an outing rule, and it is very simple. If a person uses a pseudonym, use the same pseudonym when responding to that person, or when referring to them. Simple.

At TSZ, you are a guest in someone else's house. Behave accordingly or don't accept the invitation.

I try to follow the rules of the blog I post on, admittedly not always successfully. I even do so at UD. Which is easy because I have yet to figure out what their rules are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"TWT, I really don't know what your issue is."

Then it would be best for you to keep quiet.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 01 2015,10:26

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 01 2015,10:22)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2015,07:14)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 01 2015,08:55)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2015,10:49)
The whole truth writes:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't ask for a change of status at TSZ and changing my status at TSZ does nothing to address my points about joey and EL.

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

It does give you the opportunity to raise them there.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't 'out' gordon e. mullings. gordon e. mullings 'outs' gordon e. mullings at his "always linked", etc., etc., etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if I promise to not break a rule that I didn't break in the first place, and that other people (including 'moderators') at TSZ break without being warned, banned, and 'premoderated', then you, EL, Neil, Patrick ("we") will de-ban me and "lift the premoderation restriction", eh? How nice. What about johnnyb? Is he going to go along with the rest of you (ask me if I give a fuck)?

"The "outing" rule at TSZ is not going to change."

The "outing" rule was already changed, the "outing" rule was not and is not being enforced as written, I did not 'out' gordon e. mullings, and your saying that the "outing" rule is not going to change does not address my points.

By the way, is it "outing" at TSZ when someone reveals someone else's place of employment, etc., in such a way as this:

"Winston Ewert, a software engineer at Google, Inc., indicates in a new paper that he is affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which is funded primarily by the Discovery Institute. That, in my mind, makes him a public person. Sad to say, the gloves will be coming off. But not in this thread. Here I stick to exposing the most obvious of errors in the claim that the Conservation of Information Theorem applies to nature."?
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TWT, I really don't know what your issue is. atbc does not have an outing rule (that I know of) so you can do so to your heart's content here. TSZ does have an outing rule, and it is very simple. If a person uses a pseudonym, use the same pseudonym when responding to that person, or when referring to them. Simple.

At TSZ, you are a guest in someone else's house. Behave accordingly or don't accept the invitation.

I try to follow the rules of the blog I post on, admittedly not always successfully. I even do so at UD. Which is easy because I have yet to figure out what their rules are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"TWT, I really don't know what your issue is."

Then it would be best for you to keep quiet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, that is the way to make friends and influence people.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Dec. 03 2015,04:12

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 30 2015,19:22)
I think there's a possibility that TSZ could beat UD in traffic within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Though perhaps not as 'The Moderation and Morality Zone'.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 03 2015,15:50

Our buddies Joe G/Frankie/Virgil Caine and Robert Byers have each hosted an OP at TSZ on the same day.

< #%2/&!## >

< The Great Flood Didit >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2015,20:46

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 03 2015,15:50)
Our buddies Joe G/Frankie/Virgil Caine and Robert Byers have each hosted an OP at TSZ on the same day.

< #%2/&!## >

< The Great Flood Didit >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might mention that if he isn't JoeG, then he's plagiarizing him.

This exact material was posted to one of my earlier blogs as a formal debate with Joe... 4 years ago.  https://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution-against-opening/

eta: This is the original opening that I made... < http://www.skepticink.com/smilodo....olution >


Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2015,21:00

If someone can push my comment on TSZ out of moderation, it would be appreciated.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 04 2015,09:05

Larry Moran just showed up at TSZ to confront Joe G.

Tantrum ensues.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2015,09:20

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 04 2015,09:05)
Larry Moran just showed up at TSZ to confront Joe G.

Tantrum ensues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Friday meltdown.

I'm not going to get into it with Joey.
Posted by: Lethean on Dec. 04 2015,17:14

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 03 2015,15:50)
Our buddies Joe G/Frankie/Virgil Caine and Robert Byers have each hosted an OP at TSZ on the same day.

< #%2/&!## >

< The Great Flood Didit >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just a reminder to make sure everyone treats Robert as per the usual, as stated in the instructions that were read aloud during the last secret meeting of the Darwinist Undercover PseudoShill Network.

Mapou almost outed him recently.

(More seriously, if Robert's occasional coherent posts were indeed the slip-ups of someone posing as Mapou alleged, and it turned out to be the case Robert really is a sock of someone playing a character that totally trolls and aggravates everyone on both sides ... what an epic piece of internet performance art. Genius even. I don't believe that, 9.9 out of a scale of 10 against, but it's fun to think about.)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 21 2015,15:35

Mung is in total meltdown mode at TSZ. Kind of amusing and pathetic to see a supposed Christian consumed with hate at Christmas.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 21 2015,19:26

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 21 2015,15:35)
Mung is in total meltdown mode at TSZ. Kind of amusing and pathetic to see a supposed Christian consumed with hate at Christmas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Serves the shithead right.  He's been trolling threads and bawling for weeks now because Lizzie won't let him control who gets to post and when posts are moved.

In many ways he's the most despicable of all the IDiots posting there.  Phoodoo, Joe, Mapou may all be morons with Tourette's but at least you know where they stand.  Two faced Mung will suck up to folks at TSZ then run back to UD and talk mountains of shit about the same people.  I don't think I've ever seen a bigger hypocrite.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 01 2016,09:33

It's getting tedious wading through all the 'Frankie' G. The most repetitious troll on the net.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 01 2016,10:35

I've put a bunch of them on ignore. Saves me a lot of grief. Their argument still show up in the responses, but I don't have to wade through all the whining.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 01 2016,12:22

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 01 2016,16:35)
I've put a bunch of them on ignore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good idea. I thought I wouldn't use the facility, but his entire post history is about 10 sentences, endlessly regurgitated.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 02 2016,10:36

Tried restoring Frankie. WP tells me 67,591 comments are now rendered visible. Presumably that's just as Frankie! I think I will return him to the mists.


Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 02 2016,14:09

I have only put on ignore thos trolls that have produced no productive posts at all.

I wouldn't put fifthmonarchyman or UprightBiped or gpuccio on ignore, because they do try to make reasoned arguments. Even Sal.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 02 2016,21:05

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 02 2016,14:09)
I have only put on ignore those trolls that have produced no productive posts at all.

I wouldn't put fifthmonarchyman or UprightBiped or gpuccio on ignore, because they do try to make reasoned arguments. Even Sal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fifthmonarchyman? fifth-fucking-monarchyman "tr[ies] to make reasoned arguments"? No. At best, being maximally charitable, fmm makes exactly 1 (one) argument that might be considered sorta-kinda reasonable if you tilt your head and squint at it just right, and that argument is purely, entirely presuppositional.

I don't consider presuppositional argumentation (which can be boiled down to I'll gladly discuss the validity of my premises, but first you must concede that my premises are valid) to be 'reasonable'. YMMV.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 03 2016,09:38

fmm's a dweeb. All that species-not-a-problem-for-an-atemporal being stuff was just ridiculous.

But my only reason for putting anyone on Ignore is bandwidth. Even Gallien tries to make reasoned arguments, he's just not very good at it. He is (thank Heaven for small mercies) briefer than KF, another repetitious berk who would be straight on Ignore if he showed up, but even so there's just too much of the same old shit.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 08 2016,07:20

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2016,09:38)
fmm's a dweeb. All that species-not-a-problem-for-an-atemporal being stuff was just ridiculous.

But my only reason for putting anyone on Ignore is bandwidth. Even Gallien tries to make reasoned arguments, he's just not very good at it. He is (thank Heaven for small mercies) briefer than KF, another repetitious berk who would be straight on Ignore if he showed up, but even so there's just too much of the same old shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naah, JoeG is a cross between an ELIZA bot and an 8-track tape. He has a small number of catchphrases which he spews forth in response to textual stimuli.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 08 2016,09:28

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 08 2016,05:20)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2016,09:38)
fmm's a dweeb. All that species-not-a-problem-for-an-atemporal being stuff was just ridiculous.

But my only reason for putting anyone on Ignore is bandwidth. Even Gallien tries to make reasoned arguments, he's just not very good at it. He is (thank Heaven for small mercies) briefer than KF, another repetitious berk who would be straight on Ignore if he showed up, but even so there's just too much of the same old shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naah, JoeG is a cross between an ELIZA bot and an 8-track tape. He has a small number of catchphrases which he spews forth in response to textual stimuli.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An ELIZA with fucking Tourette's.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 08 2016,13:11

What is it about Joe G and Fridays?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 08 2016,13:28

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,11:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It could be
Your position can't explain Fridays

or it might be
ID is not anti-Friday

or possibly
There is no theory of Fridays
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 08 2016,13:44


Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 08 2016,14:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,19:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody ever said 'Thank Fuck it's Joe G'.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 08 2016,19:39

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 08 2016,14:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,19:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody ever said 'Thank Fuck it's Joe G'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More like, "Thank? FuckNo! It's JoeG!"
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 09 2016,07:29

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,19:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great entertainment! It's fun to watch a professional phylogeneticist calmly and clearly 'defend' his discipline against Lilluputian arrows. $10,000 bets yet to surface.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 17 2016,04:38

The urbane and unflappable William J Murray - the man who does not experience moral outrage - will be back shortly, after his alter ego has let off a bit of steam.
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 17 2016,08:47

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 17 2016,10:38)
The urbane and unflappable William J Murray - the man who does not experience moral outrage - will be back shortly, after his alter ego has let off a bit of steam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cut him some slack.

Aliens are probing his wife's bottom on a nightly basis; that would test anyone's patience.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 16 2016,13:20

< Frankie >, who is neither Joe nor Virgil, is attempting to do for probability theory what Joe and/or Virgil did for set theory:


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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DNA_Jock:
Joe, I am not convinced that you even know what a conditional probability is.

Could you please help me out here,

how is p(T|H) related to p(H|T)?

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this context P(T|H) is the probability that materialistic processes can produce something T, given the relevant materialistic hypothesis. P(H|T) would be about a Player getting a Hat Trick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All mathematics so far.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 16 2016,13:27

What are the odds of that?
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 17 2016,11:20

< Another greatest hit!! >  Up there with "CSI of caek", "ice is not water" and "frequency = wavelength":


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…

If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.

Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True story - many years ago, on the way to a doctor's appointment, I came across Thomas Bayes' memorial in Bunhill Fields (what are the odds of that?).  If I was still living in London, I'd be hearing spinning today.
Posted by: Vasha on Mar. 17 2016,11:23

Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 17 2016,11:40

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,19:20)
< Another greatest hit!! >  Up there with "CSI of caek", "ice is not water" and "frequency = wavelength":
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…

If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.

Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True story - many years ago, on the way to a doctor's appointment, I came across Thomas Bayes' memorial in Bunhill Fields (what are the odds of that?).  If I was still living in London, I'd be hearing spinning today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Add to that



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frankie: P(H|T) is not part of Dembski’s paper and because of that irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL that makes his notpologies seem reasonable irrelevant.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 17 2016,13:31

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 17 2016,09:40)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,19:20)
< Another greatest hit!! >  Up there with "CSI of caek", "ice is not water" and "frequency = wavelength":
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…

If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.

Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True story - many years ago, on the way to a doctor's appointment, I came across Thomas Bayes' memorial in Bunhill Fields (what are the odds of that?).  If I was still living in London, I'd be hearing spinning today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Add to that



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frankie: P(H|T) is not part of Dembski’s paper and because of that irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL that makes his notpologies seem reasonable irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


P(nonsense|Joe) = 1
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 17 2016,15:30

< Moar! >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T

If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.

So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect we'll get a "not even zero" soon.
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 17 2016,18:34

Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depending on the specifics of that "godlike being", there may not be a refutation of that idea.

Consider omphalism, the notion that the universe was created a relatively short while ago, complete with a vast array of self-consistent internal evidence which falsely indicates that the universe is significantly older than it actually is. Since omphalism explicitly presumes that evidence is irrelevant, how could the proposition of a deceitful, omphalos-type creator be refuted by evidence?

Theistic evolution—the idea that God did it, and mainstream science is telling us how He did it—provides another general class of creator that cannot be refuted by evidence. If the Creator posited in Planetfall is the sort of Creator Who works Its wonders by methods that cannot be distinguished from the operation of impersonal natural law, evidence is, again, incapable of refuting that sort of Creator.

The above said and acknowledged, teleological convergent evolution is an idea that is not well-supported by evidence, and that can only be made to appear scientifically valid if one goes out of one's way to manufacture rationalizations for it.

The basic problem is, the universe does not operate by strictly deterministic principles. Which means you can't predict which mutations will occur in a genealogical lineage, any more than you can predict what sort of future environmental challenges will be faced by members of that lineage. So if the Creator posited in Planetfall just kinda seeded life and went away for however-many years, exactly what would prevent that seeded life from acquiring mutations that generate traits which were not foreseen by that Creator? What would ensure that the descendants of that seeded life were never faced with environmental conditions which cause that life to go extinct? What would ensure that the descendants of that seeded life never encountered selective pressures that eliminate traits which the Creator intended Its seeded life to develop?

Well, maybe the Creator posited in Planetfall has, all along, been observing the seeded life It created, and making adjustments as needed when things don't go according to Its plan…

TL;DR—The bare notion of a (generic, nonspecified) Creator cannot be refuted by evidence. But for any Creator that has identifiable attributes, it may be possible to refute that particular Creator-hypothesis.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 17 2016,20:48

So what you're saying is that for a claim to be refuted, that claim has to actually say something? :p
Posted by: RumraketR on Mar. 18 2016,07:54

Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The claim is as closed to expermentally refuted as one can hope for, by the Lenski long-term evolution experiment, where an originally clonal (as in genetically identical) population of cells, run independently as 12 lineages but subjected to the same type of environment for the same amount of time, managed to produce wildly different results in all 12 lineages.

It seems very hard to explain why, if life is following some kind of pre-planned trajectory, it evolves in random directions when tested with genetically identical individuals subjected to the same environmental selective pressures.

No doubt the die-hard believer will come up with some amazing ad-hoc rationalization for this, such as "all paths eventually lead to the same result despite diverging along the way" or some shit. This is just what it is though, ad-hoc rationalizations they are coming up with to avoid conceding their pet theory is falsified.

Heck, even the existence of extant biodiversity seems to constitute a falsification of the claim. Massively ironically, a great question to ask is, if all life and all evolutionary trajectories are destined to produce human-like intelligent organisms, why are there still bacteria/jellyfish/slugs/fungi/rectal-worms/monkeys?
Posted by: NoName on Mar. 18 2016,07:57

Quote (RumraketR @ Mar. 18 2016,08:54)
Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The claim is as closed to expermentally refuted as one can hope for, by the Lenski long-term evolution experiment, where an originally clonal (as in genetically identical) population of cells, run independently as 12 lineages but subjected to the same type of environment for the same amount of time, managed to produce wildly different results in all 12 lineages.

It seems very hard to explain why, if life is following some kind of pre-planned trajectory, it evolves in random directions when tested with genetically identical individuals subjected to the same environmental selective pressures.

No doubt the die-hard believer will come up with some amazing ad-hoc rationalization for this, such as "all paths eventually lead to the same result despite diverging along the way" or some shit. This is just what it is though, ad-hoc rationalizations they are coming up with to avoid conceding their pet theory is falsified.

Heck, even the existence of extant biodiversity seems to constitute a falsification of the claim. Massively ironically, a great question to ask is, if all life and all evolutionary trajectories are destined to produce human-like intelligent organisms, why are there still bacteria/jellyfish/slugs/fungi/rectal-worms/monkeys?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why have all of those continued to mutate and evolve past the point where the "intended line" split off?
It's not just that all the predecessors are still around, they've kept evolving long after the 'point' of their existence has been passed.
tl;dr:  all existent lines are as evolved as all other.  Picking any one as the 'goal' is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 18 2016,11:11

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,15:30)
< Moar! >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T

If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.

So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect we'll get a "not even zero" soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our resident theoretical physicist has been telling the statisticians that he finds negative probabilities useful in his current lines of research.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 18 2016,11:30

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,23:30)
< Moar! >
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T

If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.

So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I expect we'll get a "not even zero" soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe Frankie goes one better and slaps down Cromwell's rule (after all he is a living example of it) and now it's "not even one". He must be bipolar.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frankie Post authorMarch 18, 2016 at 3:38 pm
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(DNA_Jock March 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Frankie finds a definition of conditional probability:
P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H.

   

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

Frankie: quotes keiths

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(keiths) the probability of T given nothing is just the unconditional probability P(T).)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is incorrect. The probability of ATP synthase is 1 as it exists. So what you are saying doesn’t make any sense at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Frankie, keiths is correct. Perhaps the word “given” is giving you trouble. It does not mean “given the following tools”, rather it means “if we assume that the following is true”, so p(event|nothing) = p(event)
Always.
Maybe I was wrong about the red-letter day.

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



LoL! And another one who cannot make a case. The conditional probability remains, so keiths is wrong. The probability of T given nothing would be 0, not the probability of T, which exists and must be explained by something.

Seeing that you were so wrong yesterday and then day before, I see no reason to believe you today
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA Joe math is so useful the probability of the sun rising yesterday will be zero given the probability Joe understands nothing about conditional probability
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 20 2016,22:09

Wow.  Mung got caught in a rather egregious example of quote mining (of Lawrence Krauss) today.  About half a dozen people called him on it.  Rather than apologize he's been throwing a hissy fit all afternoon because supposedly it is against the rules for anyone to point out he was dishonestly quote mining.

What a major league dick.    :angry:
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 21 2016,17:18

linky?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 21 2016,20:20

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2016,10:18)
linky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pardon me for stepping in OA, but the fun starts < here > (comment 16). The general suspicion that Mung is quotemining is pretty well confirmed by keiths at comment 37. Lots more comments follow in the Moderation Issues (3) thread.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 22 2016,08:51

Wow. Good going Mung.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 22 2016,08:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung March 20, 2016 at 3:32 pm
A reminder for Patrick:

…do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading.

It’s in the rules and it doesn’t get any plainer than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< it's against the rules to point out my dishonesty!!!!!111 >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 22 2016,09:06

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2016,08:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung March 20, 2016 at 3:32 pm
A reminder for Patrick:

…do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading.

It’s in the rules and it doesn’t get any plainer than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< it's against the rules to point out my dishonesty!!!!!111 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it also wrong to have socks? coughFrankiecough

I note he still doesn't understand the difference between an intelligently designed system and the non-intelligently designed results of that system.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 22 2016,10:43

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-116732 >

"The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID, so how can providing details for it help ID?"

Joe Gallien, Fat fool.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 22 2016,11:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2016,18:43)
< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-....-116732 >

"The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID, so how can providing details for it help ID?"

Joe Gallien, Fat fool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats Richard! You and the TSZ crew have been providing a magnificent show leading the creo-tards around the circus ring by their noses. It seems like an otherworldly noir circus exhibiting grossly deformed almost extinct creatures whose skulls are misshapen from them gnawing at their own logical fallacies.

Nice touch sending Joe's/Frankie's/Virgil's tourettic outbursts to guano. I would make him post there permanently until he ponies up with his proof of P(A|0)=0. Still that would spoil all the fun. He should be around there for a while since he won't get down on his knees and fluff Barry at UD for posting privileges. Whats happening at UD now anyway?

Mung seems to have gone back to to the manger in a hissy fit for being called out for being a shining wit. That guy makes donkeys glad they're donkeys and not asses.

eta:fix spellz
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 22 2016,13:25

Credit to Woodbine for the assembly:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People want to know what happens if ID wins. What scientific research will ID spawn?

That’s easy – for starters post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID.

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


Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 22 2016,13:34

I bow down to all your bonfires of tard.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 23 2016,12:41

Slimy Sal is quietly eating noisily gnashing crow < linky >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 24 2016,11:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2016,10:43)
< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-....-116732 >

"The post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID, so how can providing details for it help ID?"

Joe Gallien, Fat fool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More ID brilliance from Chubs over at his place:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G:  Let's see- ID is the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. Contrasted with post-ID research that deals with the who, how, when, where, why and everything else that follows from the first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ghostrider: How do the questions

Who did the Intelligent Design?
How was the Intelligent Design done?
When was the Intelligent Design done?
Where was the Intelligent Design done?
Why was the Intelligent Design done?

...not have anything to do with Intelligent Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G:  They are separate questions from what ID asks, just as Dembski wrote. How do those questions have anything to do with the detection and study of intelligent design in nature? Do we have to have those answers before we cam determine intelligent design exists? No, we do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ghostrider: You say ID is about the detection AND STUDY of design in nature. How do those five questions above not qualify as a STUDY of the design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G: Make your case, coward. How will studying the design help us identify the designer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.  Chubs is the gift that keeps on giving.   :D
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 24 2016,13:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G: Make your case, coward. How will studying the design help us identify the designer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He already has the wavelength  ....er god  designer?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 11 2016,13:08

So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
Posted by: Texas Teach on April 11 2016,16:18

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2016,13:08)
So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderately better.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 12 2016,09:49

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2016,13:08)
So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All moderation all the time.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 12 2016,09:56

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2016,13:08)
So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll bring up that question wherever moderation is discussed, that is, in every thread.  

In that way I hope to moderate the moderators' moderation of moderate discussions of moderation.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Zachriel on April 12 2016,10:03

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 12 2016,09:56)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2016,13:08)
So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll bring up that question wherever moderation is discussed, that is, in every thread.  

In that way I hope to moderate the moderators' moderation of moderate discussions of moderation.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderation in all things — including moderation.
Posted by: Cubist on April 12 2016,17:25

In the field of economics, Gresham's Law says that "bad money drives out good money". It's pretty clear that an analogous phenomenon applies to online forums; I don't think anybody has given it a formal name, but it could be expressed as "the presence of assholes tends to eliminate intellectual discourse."

Looks to me like TSZ is becoming a data-point in support of this proposition.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 12 2016,17:59

Quote (Cubist @ April 12 2016,17:25)
In the field of economics, Gresham's Law says that "bad money drives out good money". It's pretty clear that an analogous phenomenon applies to online forums; I don't think anybody has given it a formal name, but it could be expressed as "the presence of assholes tends to eliminate intellectual discourse."

Looks to me like TSZ is becoming a data-point in support of this proposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ferment that chew-toys bring, though, needs to be included in the analysis. Perhaps fora lightly salted with, ahem, those sorts of people work best?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 12 2016,18:14

Quote (Cubist @ April 12 2016,17:25)
In the field of economics, Gresham's Law says that "bad money drives out good money". It's pretty clear that an analogous phenomenon applies to online forums; I don't think anybody has given it a formal name, but it could be expressed as "the presence of assholes tends to eliminate intellectual discourse."

Looks to me like TSZ is becoming a data-point in support of this proposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same thing is happening right now at Corny Hunter's place.  Louis Savain / Mapou and Chubby Joke G both took up residence after being banned from UD.  They've turned every thread into a shit flinging and cursing spectacle, effectively killing any discussion between the few people there trying to have a reasonable conversation.  The funny thing (both ha ha and ironic) is that Corny doesn't seem to care a bit as long as he keeps getting web hits.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 12 2016,22:29

Quote (Zachriel @ April 12 2016,08:03)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 12 2016,09:56)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2016,13:08)
So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll bring up that question wherever moderation is discussed, that is, in every thread.  

In that way I hope to moderate the moderators' moderation of moderate discussions of moderation.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderation in all things — including moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderation in all things? Doesn't that seem, you know... immoderate?
Posted by: Cubist on April 13 2016,14:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2016,17:59)
 
Quote (Cubist @ April 12 2016,17:25)
In the field of economics, Gresham's Law says that "bad money drives out good money". It's pretty clear that an analogous phenomenon applies to online forums; I don't think anybody has given it a formal name, but it could be expressed as "the presence of assholes tends to eliminate intellectual discourse."

Looks to me like TSZ is becoming a data-point in support of this proposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ferment that chew-toys bring, though, needs to be included in the analysis. Perhaps fora lightly salted with, ahem, those sorts of people work best?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mmmm… maybe. I suspect that the key is active moderation, with moderators who are willing and able to ban a troll's obnoxious ass when merited by said troll's behavior. I'm pretty sure an old USENET hand like yerself, Wes, can recall any number of unmoderated newsgroups whose decline into substance-free irrelevance are datapoints in support of the "assholes kill discourse" thesis?

TSZ's moderation is very, very light. To a first approximation, TSZ doesn't ban anybody; the one-and-only banned-at-TSZ person is JoeG, and even he didn't get hit with the banhammer until after he posted a blatantly pornographic image. It will be interesting to see how long TSZ can maintain its current level of discourse.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 13 2016,22:15

Quote (Cubist @ April 13 2016,14:55)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2016,17:59)
   
Quote (Cubist @ April 12 2016,17:25)
In the field of economics, Gresham's Law says that "bad money drives out good money". It's pretty clear that an analogous phenomenon applies to online forums; I don't think anybody has given it a formal name, but it could be expressed as "the presence of assholes tends to eliminate intellectual discourse."

Looks to me like TSZ is becoming a data-point in support of this proposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ferment that chew-toys bring, though, needs to be included in the analysis. Perhaps fora lightly salted with, ahem, those sorts of people work best?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mmmm… maybe. I suspect that the key is active moderation, with moderators who are willing and able to ban a troll's obnoxious ass when merited by said troll's behavior. I'm pretty sure an old USENET hand like yerself, Wes, can recall any number of unmoderated newsgroups whose decline into substance-free irrelevance are datapoints in support of the "assholes kill discourse" thesis?

TSZ's moderation is very, very light. To a first approximation, TSZ doesn't ban anybody; the one-and-only banned-at-TSZ person is JoeG, and even he didn't get hit with the banhammer until after he posted a blatantly pornographic image. It will be interesting to see how long TSZ can maintain its current level of discourse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Mung ever do anything during his waking hours besides troll TSZ?  He must make 50% of the posts there at least.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 14 2016,04:04

To be fair though, it's not Mung that's turning TSZ into a he-said-she-said-will-the-honourable-gentleman-retract-fest.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 14 2016,07:40

It's true. Other than being habitually wrong about everything, Mung has been well behaved lately.
Posted by: k.e.. on April 14 2016,09:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 14 2016,15:40)
It's true. Other than being habitually wrong about everything, Mung has been well behaved lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only because while the adults are squabbling he is being ignored.
Posted by: k.e.. on April 14 2016,10:13

Maybe Mung feels at home at TSZ while the big kids are discussing philosophy, he's been quoting Nietzsche after all.

k.e.. breaks forth wall
Mung a message from the speaker in the ceiling.  


Posted by: Cubist on April 14 2016,15:15

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 14 2016,07:40)
It's true. Other than being habitually wrong about everything, Mung has been well behaved lately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Relatively well-behaved—according to the standards of conduct instantiated in his own posts.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 14 2016,19:31

[/quote]


What - as in ... better? I'll get me coat.
Posted by: Henry J on April 14 2016,21:36

As in less expensive?
Posted by: Zachriel on April 16 2016,09:13

Quote (fnxtr @ April 12 2016,22:29)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 12 2016,08:03)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 12 2016,09:56)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2016,13:08)
So, when moderation is sorted out, can we look forward to better-moderated discussions on moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll bring up that question wherever moderation is discussed, that is, in every thread.  

In that way I hope to moderate the moderators' moderation of moderate discussions of moderation.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderation in all things — including moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderation in all things? Doesn't that seem, you know... immoderate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moderately moderate.
Posted by: Henry J on April 17 2016,10:04

Is there such a thing as excessive moderation?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 18 2016,13:30

Quote (Henry J @ April 17 2016,10:04)
Is there such a thing as excessive moderation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my experience, moderation is generally regarded as excessive if it happens to oneself, and is too permissive if it does not happen to others.
Posted by: JonF on May 25 2016,15:56

WTF is up with TSZ and Talk Rational? Is some hacker breaking DB connections on pro-reality sites?
Posted by: Lethean on May 25 2016,19:34

Quote (JonF @ May 25 2016,15:56)
WTF is up with TSZ and Talk Rational? Is some hacker breaking DB connections on pro-reality sites?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was just about to post a question asking if anyone knew what the details were re:TalkRational. Dave probably thinks Jesus brought the hammer down because he got shoved into the "closet of truth". Good Lord that boy is one narcissistic ASSclown.

I haven't had any issues reading TSZ, but then again I don't post there and only check in every few days or so to catch up. Always nice to watch Mung flitting about like a little monkey, chattering his mocking one-liners and flinging his tiny turds everywhere.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 27 2016,14:14

Quote (Lethean @ May 25 2016,14:34)
Quote (JonF @ May 25 2016,15:56)
WTF is up with TSZ and Talk Rational? Is some hacker breaking DB connections on pro-reality sites?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was just about to post a question asking if anyone knew what the details were re:TalkRational. Dave probably thinks Jesus brought the hammer down because he got shoved into the "closet of truth". Good Lord that boy is one narcissistic ASSclown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The site has been down for over a week, now. I hope they have a backup for their database. I'm starting to miss the news on Dave's goats.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 27 2016,14:17

Quote (JonF @ May 25 2016,10:56)
WTF is up with TSZ and Talk Rational? Is some hacker breaking DB connections on pro-reality sites?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TSZ is down for a couple of minutes every four hours when the database is backing up. Not aware of issues otherwise.
Posted by: Lethean on May 28 2016,04:02

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 27 2016,14:14)

The site has been down for over a week, now. I hope they have a backup for their database. I'm starting to miss the news on Dave's goats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks like TR is back in bid'ness. Yay!
Posted by: Lethean on May 28 2016,04:12

Quote (Lethean @ May 28 2016,04:02)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 27 2016,14:14)

The site has been down for over a week, now. I hope they have a backup for their database. I'm starting to miss the news on Dave's goats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks like TR is back in bid'ness. Yay!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aww crap, never mind. At the moment only the home/index page loads. Trying to view any of the subforums gives the ol' db error. Hopefully that gets sorted out soon.

The index looks ok though. I just happened to be online when it went down. I had just submitted a post after getting caught up on the usual threads. From what I recall, who posted what last, the index looks accurate with respect to the time it went down.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 11 2016,20:54

Mung is having a Sunday night meltdown!!! Go, Mung!

< Barry's purse >
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 11 2016,22:28

I would have included numerous links to Mung's ongoing Noyau meltdown, but that explosive bile is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 12 2016,09:56

seems to be down. ???
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 12 2016,10:45

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2016,07:56)
seems to be down. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The link doesn't work: try this: < http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....p....plained >

I wouldn't call it a meltdown - it's just normal whiny-little-shit Mung, only with more posts than usual.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 12 2016,11:49

I would submit that the combination of the original post and Mung's replies, plus the multiple mini-rants on Noyau, plus those in the "Phoodoo decision" discussion, constitute a meltdown. But perhaps my definition has not been hardened by regular UD reading, where someone could easily point and say, "Now THAT'S a meltdown!"
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 12 2016,11:58

Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 12 2016,09:49)
I would submit that the combination of the original post and Mung's replies, plus the multiple mini-rants on Noyau, plus those in the "Phoodoo decision" discussion, constitute a meltdown. But perhaps my definition has not been hardened by regular UD reading, where someone could easily point and say, "Now THAT'S a meltdown!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe a mini-meltdown: a couple of centiJoes.  Mung's been munging away like this for months.  It never really subsides.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 12 2016,12:19

How many centiJoes in a miliBarry? And how many miliBarrys  in a microKF, or should that be the other way around? Meltdown measurements are so confusing!
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 12 2016,12:35

Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 12 2016,10:19)
How many centiJoes in a miliBarry? And how many miliBarrys  in a microKF, or should that be the other way around? Meltdown measurements are so confusing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Joe and Dembski are the epitomes of meltdown - nothing going on for ages, then they go off the rails / their meds / the sauce for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose.  Barry and Gordon are always like that.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 12 2016,14:06

There melting! Their melting!!111!!one!!
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 12 2016,16:49

John W, I am reminded of C. S. Lewis's followup to "The Screwtape Letters", "Screwtape Proposes a Toast". In it, this "very experienced devil" bemoans the lack of really tasty, crunchy sinners into which he might sink his teeth, or drink a draught of their jet black, inky souls.

When have we last had our feast of a truly vicious meltdown, one where Stalinist-like bannings were made by the dozen? Oh, to get one's teeth again into a Ray Hernandez! Instead, we are treated (to use the collective nouns) to boredoms of Mungs, phlegms of Phoodoos, retchings of FMMs, and spitoons of WJMs.

But one must not be too despondent. To amend what Screwtape had to say, "The quality may be wretched; but we have never had meltdowns (of a sort) in more abundance."
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 12 2016,16:51

Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 12 2016,12:19)
How many centiJoes in a miliBarry? And how many miliBarrys  in a microKF, or should that be the other way around? Meltdown measurements are so confusing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is part of the SI system of units, allowing traceability to the highest metroillogical level.

The base unit is the Barry. 1/1000 of a Barry is a milli-Barry, or a Mung in common parlance. A micro-Barry is a Joe. A nano-Barry is a Mapou.  A femto-Barry is a William. And a kilo-Barry is a Mullings.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 12 2016,19:07

How would those units compare with "demi-God"?
Posted by: NoName on Sep. 12 2016,19:25

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 12 2016,20:07)
How would those units compare with "demi-God"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, on an intelligence scale, one peta-Barry is a hemi-demi-semi-IQ point.
It scales about the same as the illogic metric, though.  Aside from the outlier (liar?) Mullings.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 12 2016,21:08

Noting the "i" in your "illogic metric", NoName, I believe that Gaulins are the ID units of sense, intelligence, self-reflection, and a myriad of other quantities. These are, of course, imaginary numbers. They have their uses, but any correspondence with reality is strictly utilitarian.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 12 2016,22:36

But the Joe (milli-Joe, micro-Joe, etc) transcends the material units. After all, only in the supernatural rhealm could wavelength = frequency.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 12 2016,22:37

Come on!!  What do I have to do here to get a POTW? I'm pouring my heart out here.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 12 2016,23:01

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 13 2016,06:37)
Come on!!  What do I have to do here to get a POTW? I'm pouring my heart out here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!! Trying to Bogart a POTW priceless!
Posted by: fusilier on Sep. 13 2016,06:33

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 13 2016,00:01)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 13 2016,06:37)
Come on!!  What do I have to do here to get a POTW? I'm pouring my heart out here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!! Trying to Bogart a POTW priceless!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that's POTW material.

fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 13 2016,10:35

Petrushka asked Mung about what was the target in the TSP. Mung responded with Google search results on GAs and the TSP.

The TSP being approximately solved by GAs was the case I used in Q&A time with William Dembski back in 1997, and it is a case that he has managed to avoid discussing since then, so far as I know.

I wrote a simple GA TSP solver in Perl some years ago. The fitness function returned a cost equal to the Euclidean distance of the input tour, and that will work for any number of input data sets. There is no one singular "target" in that, meaning the optimal tour; the optimal tour is conditioned on the specific data set, and the GA does not have to have any knowledge of such a "target" in order to locate good approximate solutions. Being able to rank tours by relative total distance is all that is necessary for it to work. My program was both generic and effective, something that could not be true if knowledge of a specific "target" were a necessity for operation.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 13 2016,11:02

Then there is < phoodoo's comment >:



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

There is no power of cumulative selection, if you don’t decide beforehand what you are selecting for.

That’s why evolutionary algorithms are so laughable.

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



While these guys are closing their eyes, covering their ears, and shouting, "LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU", the rest of the world is getting on with business. Evolutionary computation is being deployed in research, engineering, and even finance. It is responsible for the shape of vanes in jet engines, determination of well sites for water remediation, PCB drill paths, and many, many more applications.

I've used a form of evolutionary computation that discovers mathematical models inherent in data, applied to a forecasting problem. This is something that really shows the desperation behind the critique "phoodoo" makes; not only is there no "target" known beforehand, the whole point of using the technique is model *discovery*. There is no limitation of where the data comes from or what might be in it.

Sure, any time that there is a closed-form analytical solution to your problem, you use it. But there are plenty of problems that don't have effective methods established for them, and evolutionary computation has been giving us an assist on those for decades now.
Posted by: KevinB on Sep. 13 2016,11:58

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 12 2016,16:51)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 12 2016,12:19)
How many centiJoes in a miliBarry? And how many miliBarrys  in a microKF, or should that be the other way around? Meltdown measurements are so confusing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is part of the SI system of units, allowing traceability to the highest metroillogical level.

The base unit is the Barry. 1/1000 of a Barry is a milli-Barry, or a Mung in common parlance. A micro-Barry is a Joe. A nano-Barry is a Mapou.  A femto-Barry is a William. And a kilo-Barry is a Mullings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would have placed Barry as being the sort of person who'd want to build a wall to keep nasty foreign SI units out of the country.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 13 2016,12:27

Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 13 2016,11:58)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 12 2016,16:51)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 12 2016,12:19)
How many centiJoes in a miliBarry? And how many miliBarrys  in a microKF, or should that be the other way around? Meltdown measurements are so confusing!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is part of the SI system of units, allowing traceability to the highest metroillogical level.

The base unit is the Barry. 1/1000 of a Barry is a milli-Barry, or a Mung in common parlance. A micro-Barry is a Joe. A nano-Barry is a Mapou.  A femto-Barry is a William. And a kilo-Barry is a Mullings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would have placed Barry as being the sort of person who'd want to build a wall to keep nasty foreign SI units out of the country.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's crazy talk. ID is science from top to bottom. And science relies on the SI.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 13 2016,13:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths September 12, 2016 at 6:04 am
Mung,

Your mistake is obvious, as usual. Cumulative selection doesn’t require a target, but Weasel does.

You told us that your program was a Weasel:


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

A few people suggested that I should write my own Weasel program.

So I did.

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


And you told us that it was intended to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection (while trying to downplay your failure at implementing a Weasel):


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

It’s intent was to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, not be just yet another Dawkins Weasel mimic.

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


You failed at both, and now you’ve created yet another failing thread denying your failures. It’s a remarkable display of incompetence.

The lesson should be obvious: when you go up against Weasel, you fail. Again and again.

If you learn nothing else from your failures, could you at least learn that? Weasel won, Mung. It succeeds where you have failed. Accept that and move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< linky >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 13 2016,14:19

Question: where is the code for Mung's pseudo-weasel?
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 13 2016,17:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2016,14:19)
Question: where is the code for Mung's pseudo-weasel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Elsberry - I have been searching TSZ with no avail for several minutes, but someone else will probably find the code. Here is my remembering of what Mung did: Mung wrote a Ruby program that initialized "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" as a target, wrote a random string of the target length, randomly cycled through characters at the first place in this string until it hit upon "M", proceeded onto the second character with the same approach for "E", and continued through the entire string until the target was finally acquired.

I hope I am not misrepresenting Mung's so-called GA. While I could probably work out a brute force equivalent in Java, I will not pretend to having attained anywhere near the hacking-fu of Mung. Such prowess!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 13 2016,17:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2016,09:19)
Question: where is the code for Mung's pseudo-weasel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< here >
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 14 2016,04:54

Does it latch?

Pseudo-latch?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 14 2016,07:23

It latches the first character an moves on to the next.
Posted by: NoName on Sep. 14 2016,08:13

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 14 2016,08:23)
It latches the first character an moves on to the next.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to imagine a stupider way to implement this -- even were one not trying to simulate some form of evolution.

Two tangential but interesting approaches can be found in Markov generators.  One builds the pattern dictionary from words found in 'training' texts and then outputs based on random selection of words associated with the search word or phrase.
See < The Doom That Came to Puppet > for a fun example of this approach.  The generator was trained on a selection of H.P. Lovecraft works and the documentation for the Puppet software/devOps configuration tool.

Another approach builds the pattern dictionary on the pattern of letters found in a text, for a given pattern size, then regenerates text based on the pattern being searched for.  So for a pattern of size 4 'the dog bit the girl' builds a dictionary with 'the ' followed by 'd', 'he d' followed by 'o', ..., then 'the ' gets a 'g' as another entry, etc.  Pick a random key out of the dictionary, randomly select one of the associated characters, shift the search to the last 3 characters of the previous search followed by the newly selected character, repeat until you've got enough output.   For longer input texts (basically required to get anything "interesting"), the output resembles, but does not mirror, the input, with interesting sensitivity to pattern size -- 4 or 5 seems to work best.  
Years ago I generated an 'alternate world' version of Thick as A Brick (Jethro Tull) using the letter pattern approach.
What's particularly interesting about this approach is that authorial style is mirrored better than the specific origin text.  Some of that is down to rules like 'q is always followed by u' but much of it is purely style, authorial convention if you will.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 14 2016,10:09

Mung's whole shtick is take a definition and reduce it to absurdity.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 14 2016,10:29

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 14 2016,16:13)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 14 2016,08:23)
It latches the first character an moves on to the next.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to imagine a stupider way to implement this -- even were one not trying to simulate some form of evolution.

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


Mung fails on so many levels but his biggest failure is truly a complete lack of imagination coupled with no talent whatsoever.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 14 2016,10:59

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 14 2016,13:23)
It latches the first character an moves on to the next.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Methinks it is like a WOPR.






Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 14 2016,11:33

Oh FFS Woodbine lower the bar a bit will yah! Hahahahaha
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 14 2016,11:55

But did he get that license number?
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 14 2016,14:43

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 14 2016,11:33)
Oh FFS Woodbine lower the bar a bit will yah! Hahahahaha
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn you Woodbine. My lobbying efforts for PoTW have now been for nought.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 14 2016,14:54

You've gotta up your game!

:p
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Sep. 14 2016,16:38

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 14 2016,14:54)
You've gotta up your game!

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I can't beat that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 14 2016,17:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 14 2016,10:09)
Mung's whole shtick is take a definition and reduce it to absurdity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is toothache incarnate. No, wait, hemorrhoids.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 15 2016,05:34

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 13 2016,17:45)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2016,09:19)
Question: where is the code for Mung's pseudo-weasel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks. I've added line numbering here:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

[01] TARGET_PHRASE = "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"
[02] TARGET = TARGET_PHRASE.chars
[03] TARGET_LENGTH = TARGET.length
[04] CHAR_SET = TARGET.uniq
[05]
[06] def make_baby
[07]   Array.new(TARGET_LENGTH).map {CHAR_SET.sample}
[08] end
[09]
[10] def mutate weasel, trait
[11]   weasel[trait] = CHAR_SET.sample
[12] end
[13]
[14] baby_weasel = make_baby
[15]
[16] mutations = 0
[17] TARGET_LENGTH.times do |i|
[18]   while baby_weasel[i] != TARGET[i]
[19]     mutate(baby_weasel, i)
[20]     mutations += 1
[21]     puts baby_weasel.join
[22]   end
[23] end
[24] puts "And it only required #{mutations} mutations!"

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



I'm not a Ruby coder, but RubyInstaller gets me the executable...

I'll limit myself to the first oddity for the moment.

Line 4 sets up the pool of characters that are possible results of mutation. Choice of this pool is also the choice of the problem space. Mung's choice here is to limit this to the unique set of characters in a given target phrase. Let's say that we were to use instead a target phrase of "111111111111111111111111111". Mung's code then outputs "And it only required 0 mutations!". Limiting the pool of available characters makes this version incommensurate with "weasel" programs that properly set up their problem space as a complete set of alphabetic characters plus space.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 15 2016,06:41

The most charitable interpretation of mung's efforts is that he is pointing out the loopholes in definitions.

A childish activity, in my opinion.

Discussion can be perceived as war, or as an attempt to reach a meeting of minds. Some folks choose war.
Posted by: KevinB on Sep. 16 2016,09:47

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2016,06:41)
The most charitable interpretation of mung's efforts is that he is pointing out the loopholes in definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd need as much charity as would buy the pastor of a mega-church a new private jet!

Mung's "pseudo-weasel" is not "pointing out the loopholes", it's trying to batter a hole in the castle wall with a siege engine.

The main loop (from line [17]) shows just how irrelevant Mung's program is. Rather than generating randomly mutated batches of strings, the program is merely iterating along the characters of the result string, running through a random stream of characters until a match occurs.

(In fact, a physical implementation of Mung's program in hardware exists, in the form of the IBM 1130 computer and its 1132 line printer. The printer would interrupt as each character on the print wheels came into position, and the processor would scan the print line and populate a bit map to cause the appropriate hammers to fire.)

Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 16 2016,13:00

As far as I can tell, mung is just tired of being pwned by keiths and is trying to poke holes in keiths definition of weasel.

Really childish stuff, i think, but i also think any extended exchange with mung is childish.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 16 2016,23:35

Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 17 2016,06:39

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 17 2016,07:35)
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since mung is such a stinker he should be referred to as dung.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 17 2016,08:17

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 16 2016,23:35)
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the current view has them as separate families. The older I get, the more the taxonomists change everything I used to know.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 17 2016,08:36

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 17 2016,16:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 16 2016,23:35)
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the current view has them as separate families. The older I get, the more the taxonomists change everything I used to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need an uberdermist.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 17 2016,10:47

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 17 2016,07:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 16 2016,23:35)
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the current view has them as separate families. The older I get, the more the taxonomists change everything I used to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, like when they arbitrarily decided that fungi should be a separate kingdom rather than a subset of plants? And that just because their DNA, cells, and method of digestion have a closer resemblance to animal than to plant.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 17 2016,11:33

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 17 2016,10:47)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 17 2016,07:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 16 2016,23:35)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the current view has them as separate families. The older I get, the more the taxonomists change everything I used to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, like when they arbitrarily decided that fungi should be a separate kingdom rather than a subset of plants? And that just because their DNA, cells, and method of digestion have a closer resemblance to animal than to plant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is what happens when you let your system of knowledge be guided by evidence.
Posted by: KevinB on Sep. 17 2016,15:19

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 17 2016,08:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 16 2016,23:35)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 16 2016,08:47)
Mung's program is not a Weasel (nor indeed any sort of mustelid.) I think it smells like a mephitid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mephitid is a mustelid.

(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the current view has them as separate families. The older I get, the more the taxonomists change everything I used to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I undertook rigorous research on the subject before posting.

(Actually, I checked on Wikipedia.)  :p
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Sep. 18 2016,04:00

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 17 2016,05:35)


(i.e., weasels and skunks are part of the same family.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not part of the same baramin, which I believe trumps molecular taxonomy. (quote mine: I Believe Trump)
Posted by: Lethean on Sep. 20 2016,19:04

I know jack all about programming, I'm not even a biologist, but I've always been pretty good at visualizing concepts and being fairly able to differentiate and also relate between a model or map and the landscape itself. In Mung's latest Weasel thread it's apparent he's trying not to see the bigger picture and he completely misses how it's related to the very demonstrable reality we all live in. Which to be honest if one were trying to "get it" it should be pretty evident and light bulb would come on.

In a post with a number of queries, petrushka asks...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is there any conceptual problem with replacing a static target with a moving target?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mung responds...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. Does that help or hinder when trying to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection? Perhaps a moving target Weasel will be next up, now that I finally have the hang of this Weasel programming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



keiths tries once again to clear up Mung's confusion that while Weasel has a target, cumulative selection does not require one. Or in relation to reality perhaps it's not a hard target but a fluid one, as in survival in an ever changing environment.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is just Mungish confusion. Weasel has a target, and so its fitness function rewards proximity to that target. That does not mean that cumulative selection requires a target, as is obvious to those of us who actually understand the concept. The target and the proximity-rewarding fitness function are characteristics of Weasel, not of cumulative selection generally.

Another example was your challenge regarding what would happen if we changed Weasel’s target phrase in the middle of a run. Biological evolution operates in changing fitness landscapes, so if you could somehow show that cumulative selection was thwarted by such changes, you could argue that it’s insufficient as a selective mechanism for biological evolution.

But as anyone who understands Weasel could predict, it simply starts tracking toward the new target
, and I even provided a feature in my Weasel that allows you to experiment with this. Your weird single-character latching program, by contrast, can’t handle changes to the target phrase, because any characters it has already latched are latched for good.

Since the target gambit failed, you are now dicking around with weird fitness functions that are designed to impede convergence while still (you hope) qualifying as instances of cumulative selection. As Joe and I have pointed out, that tactic also fails.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A bit earlier in the thread Keiths tries to explain the logic problem Mung is having.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the point of these asinine fitness functions? Well, Mung is engaged in abject definition lawyering, hoping that he can find some scheme that technically qualifies as “cumulative selection” but nevertheless fails to locate the target in a reasonable time. In this case he is trying to find a fitness function that satisfies the criterion “rewards proximity to the target” while still causing the program to fail.

What he is too dim to realize is that his entire project is predicated on a simple logic error. No one has claimed that cumulative selection always succeeds. So even if schemes using those idiotic fitness functions actually did qualify as “cumulative selection”, their failure to find the target wouldn’t show what Mung wants it to show.

If were smarter, he would have realized that you don’t need to concoct Mungish fitness functions in order to cause cumulative selection to fail. You can do it via much simpler interventions, like setting the mutation rate to an extremely small value.

The problem (for Mung) is stark and obvious: the fact that cumulative selection can fail in some cases does not mean that it fails in all, and it doesn’t mean that Weasel fails to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection.
*

(the asterisk is a note that Joe F. pointed out the same thing)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This kills the creature/population. /s

Rumraket introduces a relevant and related concept when he responds to a question from colewd (smoothness of landscape)

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously if you’re selecting towards the same phrase with a smooth hill to climb, the chance of convergence is one hundred percent. Interestingly, this is why convergence happens in nature. You’ll note how both fish and dolphins have that typical hydrodynamic torpedo-like shape with a pointy nose and long slim body. That’s an example of convergence and there’s a perfectly good, sensible explanation for it through natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mung perks up at the sight of something to fling a turd at and responds.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is that all that’s required to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection? A simple hill-climbing algorithm?

Wouldn’t it be amazing if nature consisted of smooth hills with targets at the top and a function to direct the genomes of living organisms to the tops of those hills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



petrushka adds ...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What would be really amazing is if you could demonstrate that people like Larry Moran or Jerry Coyne or even Dawkins have ever suggested that nature has smooth, easy to climb hills.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mung flings again.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have the Dawkins Weasel program which is designed to produce the result it does. It would probably fail to find the target phrase in far more scenarios than those in which it successfully finds the target phrase. Assume for the sake of argument that cumulative selection is still in operation in those scenarios. How would we know?

Or should we just declare that it is so and go home.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One wonders, did Mung just (fail to) relate and discover the reason for the extinction of 99+% of species that ever lived on the planet because they could not reach or maintain their position on the moving target of surviving in the environment? Who knew that the power of cumulative of selection or the combination of mutation + selection as related to a genomic pool has limits and is a cruel and harsh mistress?

I suppose if one is too intently focused on proving the map just doesn't work one might not realize it's connection, it's limits, and it's usefulness in understanding the real world.

(Apologies if I'm a bit off here or not explaining myself well. I have issues with that as it is and I'm a bit overtired. I'm just fascinated by watching people try as had as they can to go "nuh-uh" or intentionally try very hard to not understand. Go Tard.)

Edit: Yay! An edit button thingy! If it wasn't due to reaching 100 posts, my thanks to whoever flipped the bit.
Posted by: Lethean on Oct. 12 2016,14:27

Over on the "< Thread to discuss the 2nd presidential debate >" thread ...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
phoodoo October 10, 2016 at 2:31 pm

Kantian Naturalist,

But its not even possible to compare the worst things you can say about Hillary, with the worst things you can say about Trump.

If Hillary is a corporate shill, certainly trump is EVEN MORE of a big business shill. There is pretty much nothing Hillary is worse at than Trump, and I don’t particularly like her.

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





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
phoodoo October 11, 2016 at 1:12 am

newton,

I am not sure there is such a thing as a red state in this election. Imagine if Trump loses every single state. Wouldn’t that be a great thing for the Republican party going forward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
phoodoo October 11, 2016 at 3:56 am

Neil Rickert,

Of course it is exactly what I am saying.

It will teach them that their strategy of intolerance, and burn the country down to suit their own narrow interests of nationalistic cowardice is ultimately going to cause their own destruction more than anyone else’s.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who is this reasonable person and what have they done with phoodoo ?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 21 2016,19:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem is fine tuning, if it’s true, can’t be evidence of design, because if all the laws of nature are so restrictive that if they were any different nothing else would exist (matter, planets, life…) then a hypothetical creator couldn’t have designed a matter or life permitting universe any other way. He would have no say as to how the laws work, so those laws must exist independent of the creator. The fine tuning argument renders god a mere handyman with a blueprint to build universes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< linky >
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 21 2016,21:18

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 21 2016,18:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem is fine tuning, if it’s true, can’t be evidence of design, because if all the laws of nature are so restrictive that if they were any different nothing else would exist (matter, planets, life…) then a hypothetical creator couldn’t have designed a matter or life permitting universe any other way. He would have no say as to how the laws work, so those laws must exist independent of the creator. The fine tuning argument renders god a mere handyman with a blueprint to build universes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:lol: :D
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 22 2016,03:20



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

Imagine pulling that shit in court –

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

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

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

< responding to VJ the idiot. >
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 22 2016,10:10

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

Defendant: "No, Your Honor, I'm trying to hide it."
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 28 2016,15:43

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

He is, of course, just asking questions.

< linky >
Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 28 2016,17:17

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

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

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

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

(ETA: when I was talking about registering, I meant I intended to point out problems with FMM's most recent post, that silly "Turing Test" nonsense, not vjtorley's. I can only plead fury at WJM's continued privileged status.)
Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 28 2016,17:27

Alan Fox just showed some guts, for which I thank him to the utmost. In the name of what TSZ has stood for, Murray's post should be removed and his original posting privileges revoked. Like what I say matters, but this is a bleak day for Lizzie's site.
Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 28 2016,19:08

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

No, wait. I apologize. This is (somewhat) new, poisonous territory, and I should not ascribe motive without information. It could well be that the moderators (even Patrick!) might be thinking that maybe there are boundaries to what constitutes a decent original post at TSZ. FroeK was blocked from posting his usual bile just recently, and even Lizzie stepped in to say, "Yeah, not so much." Murray's post was perfect for UD; as an appreciative and grateful reader of TSZ, I can only beg the mods to let that be the dunghill from which he crows.
Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 28 2016,22:14

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

By letting Murray's post stand, Alan, Neil, and Patrick are participating in blood libel. I hope they will see that.
Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 29 2016,09:05

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

I suppose I ought to also thank WJM for the opportunity for a Monday night meltdown. It was fun.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 29 2016,11:25

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

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


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

5...
4...
3...
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 29 2016,11:48

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

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


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

5...
4...
3...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The post is still on the site - it's just been thrown on the shit-heap.  Which is good.  Next time WJM gets sanctimonious (ETA: 3-5 minutes) we can link to it.
Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 29 2016,20:36

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

Tuesday night meltdown.
Posted by: Patrick on Dec. 01 2016,12:11

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

Tuesday night meltdown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



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

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



If you have any objections, please raise them in the Moderation Issues thread at The Skeptical Zone.
Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 01 2016,13:41

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

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

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

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

But let me thank you again for continuing to be a moderator at TSZ. While I may disagree with your philosophy, I am glad to see it expressed there so that debate may be had. In terms of my registering and posting in the Moderation thread, well, maybe, but I usually prefer to let others with greater facility speak.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2016,13:49

skeptical zone has been better than UD lately.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 01 2016,15:21

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


LBOTW

(low bar of the week)
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 01 2016,15:39

Does anyone know what this removed post at UD was about. It appears that WJM has a problem.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alt-Right? Fake News? Down The Rabbit Hole

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

(post removed)

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



Other being against all things science, do they have a focus? Other than KairosFocus?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 01 2016,16:01

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2016,13:39)
Does anyone know what this removed post at UD was about. It appears that WJM has a problem.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alt-Right? Fake News? Down The Rabbit Hole

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

(post removed)

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



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


Well, back in the day, the focus was "make creationists look like scientists, in the hope that a school board somewhere will get its arse kicked in court."
Now, as you imply, the focus is "keep the village loonies off the streets and out of trouble, so the good people of Montserrat and Colorado Springs can go about their business without being hassled."
Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 01 2016,20:01

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 01 2016,16:01)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2016,13:39)
Does anyone know what this removed post at UD was about. It appears that WJM has a problem.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alt-Right? Fake News? Down The Rabbit Hole

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

(post removed)

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



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


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


An example of cooption?
Posted by: Patrick on Dec. 02 2016,08:21

[quote=clamboy,Dec. 01 2016,14:41][/quote]


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

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



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



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

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



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

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



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

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



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

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

Lizzie is not as absolutist as I am, but she tends to support freedom of expression far more than some at The Skeptical Zone would like.  As long as she continues to do so, I'll be happy to help out however I can there.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 03 2016,10:38

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excellent video! Totally worth watching all the way through to the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< TSZ >

< UDderly pointless >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 03 2016,21:50

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excellent video! Totally worth watching all the way through to the end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< TSZ >

< UDderly pointless >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

Anything that someone claims CSI does, if it is an actual application, can be done more simply and rigorously with our Specified Anti-Information (SAI) framework applying the Universal Distribution. (One could state this somewhat more strongly, that CSI has proved resistant to empirical application, and SAI is trivially applicable.) But SAI doesn't permit making unwarranted rarefied design inferences.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 13 2016,21:49



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

-FifthMonarchyMan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: < linky >


Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 14 2016,10:47

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2016,19:49)


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

-FifthMonarchyMan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: < linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only god would show me a sign.  Like having FMM make an argument which isn't fucking stupid.
Posted by: KevinB on Dec. 14 2016,12:39

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 14 2016,10:47)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2016,19:49)
 

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

-FifthMonarchyMan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: < linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 14 2016,12:45

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2016,21:49)


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

-FifthMonarchyMan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: < linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Used in a sentence: FMM is an individual of rare and unusual intelligence.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 14 2016,14:18

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


Meaning his intelligence has a body to control?
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 14 2016,14:56

Intelligent Design is down to some real winners.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 14 2016,16:55

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


Meaning his intelligence has a body to control?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With the help of Depends it is almost working perfectly.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 14 2016,17:05

That's not exactly what I meant, but I guess it'll do. :p
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 15 2016,01:35

< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 15 2016,02:43

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: paragwinn on Dec. 15 2016,03:33

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 15 2016,00:43)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The TRUTH will get you brie.

I dearly remember that old hymn, "Block of Aged Cheddar"
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 15 2016,08:53

It was a caerphilly worded statement.
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 15 2016,09:16

Quote (paragwinn @ Dec. 15 2016,11:33)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 15 2016,00:43)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The TRUTH will get you brie.

I dearly remember that old hymn, "Block of Aged Cheddar"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical! You guys are going whey over the top. We should feta FMM for mentioning le grand fromage at the top of the stairs suggesting curdled sheep's milk was a paneer sea for Constantine. I will never look at a Greak salad the same way again.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 15 2016,09:42

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2016,09:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Dec. 15 2016,11:33)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 15 2016,00:43)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The TRUTH will get you brie.

I dearly remember that old hymn, "Block of Aged Cheddar"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical! You guys are going whey over the top. We should feta FMM for mentioning le grand fromage at the top of the stairs suggesting curdled sheep's milk was a paneer sea for Constantine. I will never look at a Greak salad the same way again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our Feta
Who art in Havarti
Gouda be thy name
Thy Kasseri come
Thy Brie be done
On Parmesan as it is in Havarti
Give us this Whey or daily Blue
And forgive those who Provalone against Swiss
And Limburger us not into Monterey Jack
But deliver us from Muenster
For thine is the Butterkase, the Cheddar and the Colby
For Edam and Edam, Asiago
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 15 2016,10:09

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 15 2016,17:42)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2016,09:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Dec. 15 2016,11:33)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 15 2016,00:43)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The TRUTH will get you brie.

I dearly remember that old hymn, "Block of Aged Cheddar"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical! You guys are going whey over the top. We should feta FMM for mentioning le grand fromage at the top of the stairs suggesting curdled sheep's milk was a paneer sea for Constantine. I will never look at a Greak salad the same way again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our Feta
Who art in Havarti
Gouda be thy name
Thy Kasseri come
Thy Brie be done
On Parmesan as it is in Havarti
Give us this Whey or daily Blue
And forgive those who Provalone against Swiss
And Limburger us not into Monterey Jack
But deliver us from Muenster
For thine is the Butterkase, the Cheddar and the Colby
For Edam and Edam, Asiago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your cup rennet over.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 15 2016,12:17

That was some cheesy poetry.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Dec. 15 2016,12:57

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2016,12:17)
That was some cheesy poetry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It almost makes my blood CURDle.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 15 2016,13:06

And a whey we go...
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 15 2016,14:27

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2016,11:06)
And a whey we go...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


great, now you've in curd a pun cascade.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 15 2016,14:49

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 15 2016,14:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2016,11:06)
And a whey we go...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


great, now you've in curd a pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It becomes aged after a while, as a rather mild form of humor.

But I will not give up on culture!

Glen Davidson
Posted by: paragwinn on Dec. 15 2016,15:04

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2016,08:09)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 15 2016,17:42)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2016,09:16)
   
Quote (paragwinn @ Dec. 15 2016,11:33)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 15 2016,00:43)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The TRUTH will get you brie.

I dearly remember that old hymn, "Block of Aged Cheddar"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical! You guys are going whey over the top. We should feta FMM for mentioning le grand fromage at the top of the stairs suggesting curdled sheep's milk was a paneer sea for Constantine. I will never look at a Greak salad the same way again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our Feta
Who art in Havarti
Gouda be thy name
Thy Kasseri come
Thy Brie be done
On Parmesan as it is in Havarti
Give us this Whey or daily Blue
And forgive those who Provalone against Swiss
And Limburger us not into Monterey Jack
But deliver us from Muenster
For thine is the Butterkase, the Cheddar and the Colby
For Edam and Edam, Asiago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your cup rennet over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does fifthmonarchyman know why God hates Ambert cheese?
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 15 2016,17:49

Quote (paragwinn @ Dec. 15 2016,23:04)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2016,08:09)
   
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 15 2016,17:42)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2016,09:16)
     
Quote (paragwinn @ Dec. 15 2016,11:33)
     
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 15 2016,00:43)
         
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2016,01:35)
< fifthmonarchyman > (who else?):
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a friend we have in cheeses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Taste and see that the lord is gouda.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The TRUTH will get you brie.

I dearly remember that old hymn, "Block of Aged Cheddar"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical! You guys are going whey over the top. We should feta FMM for mentioning le grand fromage at the top of the stairs suggesting curdled sheep's milk was a paneer sea for Constantine. I will never look at a Greak salad the same way again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our Feta
Who art in Havarti
Gouda be thy name
Thy Kasseri come
Thy Brie be done
On Parmesan as it is in Havarti
Give us this Whey or daily Blue
And forgive those who Provalone against Swiss
And Limburger us not into Monterey Jack
But deliver us from Muenster
For thine is the Butterkase, the Cheddar and the Colby
For Edam and Edam, Asiago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your cup rennet over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does fifthmonarchyman know why God hates Ambert cheese?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep..... it's a rogue fort fermenting a separation.
Posted by: Cubist on Dec. 15 2016,18:23

Hmm. Maybe I'm being overly charitable here, but it seems to me that "feta complete" might be the result of flawed speech-to-text conversion, or perhaps overactive autocorrect.
Posted by: mitschlag on Dec. 15 2016,18:31

     


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our Feta
Who art in Havarti
Gouda be thy name
Thy Kasseri come
Thy Brie be done
On Parmesan as it is in Havarti
Give us this Whey or daily Blue
And forgive those who Provalone against Swiss
And Limburger us not into Monterey Jack
But deliver us from Muenster
For thine is the Butterkase, the Cheddar and the Colby
For Edam and Edam, Asiago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That looks like the Apostles' cheese.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 15 2016,18:44

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2016,18:23)
Hmm. Maybe I'm being overly charitable here, but it seems to me that "feta complete" might be the result of flawed speech-to-text conversion, or perhaps overactive autocorrect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could be, but perhaps the larger point is that one really can't tell when it's a dullard like FMM--one who has actively kept himself dull, I might add.

It's the Poe syndrome, it's so damned hard to write something too dumb for a creationist (usually many creationists) to write it somewhere on the internet.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 15 2016,20:12

At one time or another, we've all been  victims of autocorrupt.
Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 16 2016,05:03

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 16 2016,04:12)
At one time or another, we've all been  victims of autocorrupt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rubbish the guy is a dick wit. It's a feet à complimentary.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 16 2016,11:25

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 16 2016,03:03)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 16 2016,04:12)
At one time or another, we've all been  victims of autocorrupt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rubbish the guy is a dick wit. It's a feet à complimentary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fate of calm pleat?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 16 2016,12:00

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 16 2016,09:25)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 16 2016,03:03)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 16 2016,04:12)
At one time or another, we've all been  victims of autocorrupt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rubbish the guy is a dick wit. It's a feet à complimentary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fate of calm pleat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maintaining the gastronomic theme, fete of confit.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 16 2016,12:21

Plate of corned feet.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 20 2016,08:22

I come back after a couple of weeks and find the site reeks of bleu humor.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Dec. 20 2016,08:49

Still, I am one who delights in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse.


Posted by: Soapy Sam on Dec. 20 2016,08:52

Frankie's back. phoodoo is now the second biggest knobhead there, and he is pissed.


Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 20 2016,09:17

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 20 2016,07:22)
I come back after a couple of weeks and find the site reeks of bleu humor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Say "cheese"!
Posted by: Pilchard on Dec. 25 2016,12:54

I don't know why I'm following fifthmonarchyman on the Fatima thread try to teach Kantian Naturalist that epistemology must be and can only be magic, but reading him is exhausting. As far as I can tell his repetition is a performative demonstration of the infinite regress he wants to avoid.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 25 2016,13:34

Quote (Pilchard @ Dec. 25 2016,12:54)
I don't know why I'm following fifthmonarchyman on the Fatima thread try to teach Kantian Naturalist that epistemology must be and can only be magic, but reading him is exhausting. As far as I can tell his repetition is a performative demonstration of the infinite regress he wants to avoid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FMM is our vat in a brain experiment.

So far so bad...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 26 2016,20:08

Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.)
Posted by: Patrick on Dec. 28 2016,14:18

Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08)
Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants.
Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 29 2016,18:55

Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18)
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08)
Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree.

"Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student.

"A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull.

"Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting.

I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters.
Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 30 2016,00:44

"Carl Woese - Evolution Skeptic" - YYYYYAAAAAWWWWNNNNN

So damned old, Mung, so damned OLD!
Posted by: RumraketR on Dec. 30 2016,14:17

I agree, I don't expect much interesting intellectual output from any of them. But there's still a difference between the complete and utter volitional braindamage one is disposed to receive from phoodoo, fmm and frankie, versus what can on rare occasion at least approach the form of a question borne out of a tiny hint of genuine curiosity from Mung, Sal and... well I think that's it.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Dec. 30 2016,15:45

There's always Old King Cole. He's a merry old soul. Importuning passers-by to tell him how common descent is tested. Upon having it explained, moving on to the next ... 'tell me, how is common descent tested?'.

Like stabbing water.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 30 2016,16:23

Surely you're not saying that no matter how many different ways "nested hierarchy" gets described and elaborated on, it never gets through?
Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 30 2016,23:02

Quote (RumraketR @ Dec. 30 2016,14:17)
I agree, I don't expect much interesting intellectual output from any of them. But there's still a difference between the complete and utter volitional braindamage one is disposed to receive from phoodoo, fmm and frankie, versus what can on rare occasion at least approach the form of a question borne out of a tiny hint of genuine curiosity from Mung, Sal and... well I think that's it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, O omniscient Lord, for blessing us with your presence. No, no, that's okay, I don't need all that revealed to me...NO!
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 31 2016,11:53

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2016,13:45)
There's always Old King Cole. He's a merry old soul. Importuning passers-by to tell him how common descent is tested. Upon having it explained, moving on to the next ... 'tell me, how is common descent tested?'.

Like stabbing water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowledge, knowledge everywhere,
Not a drop in did sink.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 31 2016,12:16

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 31 2016,11:53)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2016,13:45)
There's always Old King Cole. He's a merry old soul. Importuning passers-by to tell him how common descent is tested. Upon having it explained, moving on to the next ... 'tell me, how is common descent tested?'.

Like stabbing water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowledge, knowledge everywhere,
Not a drop in did sink.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An inveterate questioner, wanting nothing but detailed answers.

Oh, and ID, which has no meaningful answers at all, let alone detailed ones.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 31 2016,14:54

Gregory, to Joe Felsenstein:

"You write as a professional biologist should without the bluster of the internet know-it-all with no humility."

Can a living being so oblivious to its own nature maintain biological functions?
Posted by: Patrick on Jan. 01 2017,21:03

Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 29 2016,19:55)
Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18)
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08)
Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree.

"Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student.

"A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull.

"Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting.

I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I still have a soft spot for Mung.  Somewhere around my insular cortex.  I suspect I could last as long as two beers with him before we came to blows.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Jan. 01 2017,23:28

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 01 2017,21:03)
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 29 2016,19:55)
Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08)
Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree.

"Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student.

"A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull.

"Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting.

I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I still have a soft spot for Mung.  Somewhere around my insular cortex.  I suspect I could last as long as two beers with him before we came to blows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I could last a few beers with Mung (more if he is paying). He has a rare trait amongst IDists. He has the ability to laugh at himself.

Joe, Mullings, Cunningham, Arrington and Murray, on the other hand, simply take themselves, and their stupid religion, too seriously for me to want to spend valuable drinking time with. Even if they are paying (which they wouldn't).
Posted by: clamboy on Jan. 02 2017,00:59

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 01 2017,21:03)
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 29 2016,19:55)
Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 28 2016,14:18)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 26 2016,21:08)
Meanwhile, Mung has decided that TSZ is now his personal blog. I wouldn't mind so much, if only his posts were not so damned *boring*! (Some of the replies from certain regulars give me actual food for thought, which is why I keep going back.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The worst part of TSZ at the moment is that Mung is solidly in the reality-based peak of the bimodal distribution of participants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see your point, Patrick, I really really do, in this world of phoodoo and Joekie, but I will have to agree to disagree.

"Nothing From Nothing" - a sophomoric rehash of hackneyed, refuted apologetics, straight from the land of Snoreway. Maybe not too bad for a PHI 101 freshman student.

"A Christmas Story" - a pristine example of the exact opposite of all that TSZ has stood for: Mung provides no actual examination of the opposing side, he engages in his typical refusal to employ the principle of charity...same old Mung, that is, dull, dull, dull.

"Evolution Skeptics!" - the words of someone who is a willful ignoramus, barely a step above JoeG in terms of long-term childish ranting.

I really enjoy much of what KN posts, and walto, and dazz, and Sal is game for a laugh. Patrick, your straight-up no-nonsense bluntness makes for good reading. But Mung...lord a mighty, I have yet to read anything from him that makes me go "Hmmm," and his jokes and sniping are space-wasters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I still have a soft spot for Mung.  Somewhere around my insular cortex.  I suspect I could last as long as two beers with him before we came to blows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Mung were buying, and if it were good beer, I would be happy to drink and listen to him hold forth about, say, the infield fly rule. Or the timing of traffic lights in New London. Or the comparative bad-ass-ness of "Master of Puppets" over "Ride the Lightning." Again, he would have to be buying, and nothing he yammers on about at TSZ would be acceptable as a topic of conversation. He's got a smidgen of spunk, and a soupcon of self-mockery, but he seems to have no interest in learning anything new. That is what is too bad.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 03 2017,22:04

But he owns lots of books.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 08 2017,01:58

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 04 2017,06:04)
But he owns lots of books.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it when he quotes Schopenhauer but misses his meaning.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think.

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


Posted by: clamboy on Jan. 13 2017,20:19

Sometimes I love Robert Byers:

ETA: Bad link deleted. I suck.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 13 2017,23:55

Heck, if you want to see poultry in motion, just watch a chicken cross a road.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 14 2017,01:53

Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 13 2017,20:19)
Sometimes I love Robert Byers:

< Poultry in spastic motion >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link not working.

Try this one:

< Poultry in spastic motion >


Posted by: Quack on Jan. 14 2017,02:07

Duplicate deleted.


Posted by: clamboy on Jan. 14 2017,09:25

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 14 2017,01:53)
Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 13 2017,20:19)
Sometimes I love Robert Byers:

< Poultry in spastic motion >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link not working.

Try this one:

< Poultry in spastic motion >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Quack! The teevee on the typewriter n' me ain't good friends.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 14 2017,10:16

That Byers post was just embarrassing.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 14 2017,16:13

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2017,09:16)
That Byers post was just embarrassing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To whom? Probably not to Byers.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 14 2017,17:34

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 14 2017,16:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2017,09:16)
That Byers post was just embarrassing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To whom? Probably not to Byers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Byers ever gained the capacity to feel embarrassed, I imagine his face would melt like the Nazis in Raiders.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 14 2017,18:30

You call that archaeology?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 14 2017,19:25

Not half as embarrassing as Byers on marsupials. No, that's not a street name for a new drug.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 15 2017,00:29

Byers's post at TSZ really represents the creationist intellect.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 15 2017,17:47

Isn't "creationist intellect" an oxymoron?

(I resisted saying that as long as I could, but it was futile. )
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 15 2017,20:16

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2017,17:47)
Isn't "creationist intellect" an oxymoron?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it isn't. Whatever psychological deficits may be typical of Creationists as a group, said group doesn't include any more idiots than any other population of comparable size. And it's long been noted that Creationists can be pretty sharp cookies in any context which doesn't impinge upon their essentially religious idée fixe. This doesn't suggest a deficit in IQ; rather, it suggests a highly specific deficit in rationality, possibly founded on compartmentalized thinking and a delusional belief system which has given them a great deal of emotional solace over their lifetime.
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 15 2017,21:08

Joe-TARD

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: paragwinn on Jan. 15 2017,21:40

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 15 2017,18:16)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2017,17:47)
Isn't "creationist intellect" an oxymoron?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it isn't. Whatever psychological deficits may be typical of Creationists as a group, said group doesn't include any more idiots than any other population of comparable size. And it's long been noted that Creationists can be pretty sharp cookies in any context which doesn't impinge upon their essentially religious idée fixe. This doesn't suggest a deficit in IQ; rather, it suggests a highly specific deficit in rationality, possibly founded on compartmentalized thinking and a delusional belief system which has given them a great deal of emotional solace over their lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To add to the above comment, there are some other factors involved. Tempering one's confidence in one's intellectual abilities in the form of "pride comes before a fall" can lead to subordinating curiosity to faith and doctrine so that you dont lose out on the rewards that faith is supposed to bring about. Being taught that the world around you is hostile to your faith community fosters an attitude of defensiveness when one encounters "opposing" knowledge as well as a dependence on one's religious elders in pointing out whats worth knowing and what isnt. Teachings that emphasize the immutability of spiritual knowledge compared to "worldly" knowledge can foster a denigrating attitude towards rationality-based tentative approaches to issues concerning our place in the universe. These factors work to maintain one's certainty about whats in line with one's faith and about how to deal with "opposing" knowledge (or from their perspective, false so-called knowledge and undermining influences on faith). Working oneself out from under these factors takes boldness in consideration of what one fears to lose (sense of certainty, community, purpose in many situations). It's difficult to see what can be gained until the effort is well underway.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 16 2017,01:54

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2017,22:08)
Joe-TARD

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


where?
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 16 2017,09:46

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 16 2017,07:54)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2017,22:08)
Joe-TARD

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


where?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-....-160627 >
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 16 2017,11:22

And here I thought "design" (when used as a noun) meant something like "inter-relationship of parts in a thing or in a system". That doesn't sound like a mechanism to me.
Posted by: Lethean on Jan. 16 2017,11:40

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2017,21:08)
Joe-TARD

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



Takes me back to the good ol' days of  ice ≠ water.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 16 2017,12:05

Does that include snow? It certainly produces a messy sidewalk when it melts.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Jan. 16 2017,16:40

Quote (Lethean @ Jan. 16 2017,11:40)
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 15 2017,21:08)
Joe-TARD

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID isn’t a mechanistic claim but design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



Takes me back to the good ol' days of  ice ≠ water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Frequency = Wavelength.

That man has a serious issue with what the equal sign signifies. He must have missed that day at home-schooling.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 17 2017,09:13

So he doesn't know what "1/x" means? Or maybe his teacher wrote it as x^(-1), or maybe x**(-1) ?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 03 2017,17:14

FINALLY got pav to bust out the hiv denial

< here goes >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PaV February 3, 2017 at 8:59 pm
AhmedKiaan,

Ahmed: remember when I asked you to write an OP explaining just how HIV brings about AIDS you demured?

Let’s assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Those who propose all of this say that there are about 24 or 25 separate diseases that are caused by HIV. (BTW, have you ever heard of any other virus doing anything like this at all?)

Let’s task the case of South Africa. The president there would not allow anti-retrovirals to be used. What should we expect IF the HIV virus does in fact bring about AIDS?

Well, as HIV spreads–and we are told that HIV is an ‘epidemic’ in all of Africa, with South Africa being no exception–then HIV will infect more and more people, who will then die of these 25 or so deadly diseases. Right?

Further, with time you would expect the population to decrease given this ‘epidemic’ and its deadly outcomes. Right?

But what happened in South Africa?

The population GREW. That’s funny, isn’t it? And what about the number of cases let’s say of pneuomonia, tubercolosis, and so forth?

While the number of persons having HIV steadily increased, the number of those having the diseases associated with HIV stayed about the same from year to year. How is that possible?

Well, here’s how it’s possible. If HIV is no more than a carrier virus, causing no harm to the person having it, then the MORE you TEST for HIV, the more you will find it. Why? Because it is a harmless virus that gets passed on from one person to the next WITHOUT anyone knowing it.

Now, here’s the “definition” of AIDS: you have one of these 25 diseases,
AND, you are detected as having HIV.

Thus, the more you test, the more HIV virus you will find. Given that the level of people contacting or developing these 25 other diseases STAYS the SAME, then you will have roughly the same number of people dying each year of these same 25 diseases, BUT, the number of people diagnosed as having AIDS will continue to increase each year.

This is what you will find there. And, if you look for World Health Organization statistics, you’ll find that they’re simply MADE UP. Yes, that’s right: MADE UP.

This is all about political correctness and Big Pharma, along, of course, with crony capitalism.

These are facts. They need to be refuted before I can accept the HIV-AIDS connection.

(You realize, of course, that the way in which AIDS is “defined” makes it impossible to disprove the connection. Why? Because they are connected from the start simply through assumption. It’s a lot like how evolutionists first assume evolution took place, and then use the evolution on display to “prove” evolutionary theory. If you don’t know already, you can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps.)

 (Quote in reply)  (Reply)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: paragwinn on Feb. 03 2017,23:11

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2017,15:14)
FINALLY got pav to bust out the hiv denial

< here goes >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Just ... wow. The crank is strong in this one.
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 03 2017,23:46

Hmm. Wanted to check that out, but my machine's anti-virus protection thinks the Skeptical Zone is infected with something called "URL:mal". Unfortunate. Seems to be very new, as in "sometime within the past several hours".
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 04 2017,06:10

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 04 2017,05:46)
Hmm. Wanted to check that out, but my machine's anti-virus protection thinks the Skeptical Zone is infected with something called "URL:mal". Unfortunate. Seems to be very new, as in "sometime within the past several hours".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't worry it's just a carrier virus.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 04 2017,13:04

Yep, I can't get in under my configuration - Avast blocks it.
Posted by: Patrick on Feb. 04 2017,15:48

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 04 2017,14:04)
Yep, I can't get in under my configuration - Avast blocks it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you willing to share the details of your operating system and browser so I can see if this is an actual problem on the site?

Thanks!
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 04 2017,20:14

Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 04 2017,07:11)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2017,15:14)
FINALLY got pav to bust out the hiv denial

< here goes >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Just ... wow. The crank is strong in this one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well he does say that he can't pull himself up with his own bootstraps.
He will never be able to overcome his own inability to process a complete logical thought based on logic and actual facts, never mind make an inspired mental leap. Just look at his elementary school math level. It seems he has a very severe learning disabilty if I were to be generous but he really is just plain stupid and ignorant. When he responds to an OP pointing out HIV attacks the the immune system he reponds that amyl nitrate does the same.
Is that some sort of gay Freudian slip?
In any case Pav truly has to be one of the stupidest people that has ever posted online.
And Mung is very close behind him with his "I've read a shit ton of philosophy but still can't think" schtick.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 05 2017,03:11

Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 04 2017,21:48)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 04 2017,14:04)
Yep, I can't get in under my configuration - Avast blocks it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you willing to share the details of your operating system and browser so I can see if this is an actual problem on the site?

Thanks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure - Windows 10 and Firefox (happens in Internet Explorer too). Happens immediately on front page load - "threat [http://]95.142.159.2/wp/ infection URL:Mal".

[eta - this is the only site it occurs on, so far. I might have assumed it was something on my side but for the same issue reported above. May still be a fault with Avast, of course, if that is the antivirus program in the other instance]


Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 05 2017,05:04

Just ran a check using Sucuri plugin that reports no malware found.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 05 2017,07:04

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 05 2017,11:04)
Just ran a check using Sucuri plugin that reports no malware found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might try access through Avast (free download)? They do suggest I can report as false positive. It may well be, and the Sucuri result increases confidence.
Posted by: Patrick on Feb. 05 2017,13:43

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 05 2017,08:04)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 05 2017,11:04)
Just ran a check using Sucuri plugin that reports no malware found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might try access through Avast (free download)? They do suggest I can report as false positive. It may well be, and the Sucuri result increases confidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


virustotal and urlvoid also come up clean.  I'll try Avast later today.

Thanks for the help.
Posted by: Patrick on Feb. 06 2017,10:01

Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 05 2017,14:43)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 05 2017,08:04)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 05 2017,11:04)
Just ran a check using Sucuri plugin that reports no malware found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might try access through Avast (free download)? They do suggest I can report as false positive. It may well be, and the Sucuri result increases confidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


virustotal and urlvoid also come up clean.  I'll try Avast later today.

Thanks for the help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I raised the issue with Avast technical support.  They investigated and found no problems with The Skeptical Zone.  Avast should stop reporting it as a malware site.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 06 2017,10:28

Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 06 2017,18:01)
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 05 2017,14:43)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 05 2017,08:04)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 05 2017,11:04)
Just ran a check using Sucuri plugin that reports no malware found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might try access through Avast (free download)? They do suggest I can report as false positive. It may well be, and the Sucuri result increases confidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


virustotal and urlvoid also come up clean.  I'll try Avast later today.

Thanks for the help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I raised the issue with Avast technical support.  They investigated and found no problems with The Skeptical Zone.  Avast should stop reporting it as a malware site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had to the the same with Norton for a little used site once.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 06 2017,11:41

Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 06 2017,16:01)
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 05 2017,14:43)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 05 2017,08:04)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 05 2017,11:04)
Just ran a check using Sucuri plugin that reports no malware found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might try access through Avast (free download)? They do suggest I can report as false positive. It may well be, and the Sucuri result increases confidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


virustotal and urlvoid also come up clean.  I'll try Avast later today.

Thanks for the help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I raised the issue with Avast technical support.  They investigated and found no problems with The Skeptical Zone.  Avast should stop reporting it as a malware site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great, thanks for that, I can get in now. Unfortunately it's become infested with clueless dweebs who can't even understand a basic concept like selection. I'll get onto Avast ...
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 06 2017,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unfortunately it's become infested with clueless dweebs who can't even understand a basic concept like selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that was what Avast wanted to say, but didn't know how.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 06 2017,12:24

Avast, ye mateys!

(Somebody had to say that)
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 08 2017,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform.  Usually when I encounter someone who didn’t vote for Trump, I immediately notice an obvious emotional quality to their perspective – they hate or are disgusted by the guy personally, but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are.  They immediately assume I am racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, etc.

I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< William J Murry: "derp derp derp" >
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 08 2017,16:11

WJM



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m pro-torture
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 08 2017,16:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William J. Murray Post author February 8, 2017 at 10:09 pm
graham2:

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

WJM: You said you are pro-torture. Can you confirm that ?

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


Yeah. I’m in favor of using some torture techniques to get information where adn when it is warranted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Wow >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 08 2017,16:36

I just read that whole thread. Even phoodoo took him to task. William J. Murray is the dictionary definition of Complete Idiot.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 08 2017,16:53


Posted by: clamboy on Feb. 09 2017,00:22

William J Murray's posting privileges were suspended when he posted slander based on libel. Now he's got 'em back, and posts what amounts to one heaping pile o' Guano.

Patrick is right that TSZ is broken, when such dreck is considered appropriate fodder for discussion.

Oh, and Mung? I really hope you get paid by the post. Otherwise...well, it keeps you off the streets, I guess. And, I hope, out of classrooms.
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 09 2017,02:55

I've said it before,and it's worth repeating: Absent active moderation, any internet forum will eventually degenerate into a troll-infested wasteland. TSZ started out okay, but these days, it would be very easy to mistake TSZ for a troll-infested wasteland…
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2017,04:42

They spend a lot of time there discussing their moderation. That's not a sign things are running smoothly.
Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 09 2017,06:02

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 09 2017,04:42)
They spend a lot of time there discussing their moderation. That's not a sign things are running smoothly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, given that TSZ's moderation is so friggin' passive that in practical terms, it may as well not exist…
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 09 2017,10:51

Quote (clamboy @ Feb. 09 2017,00:22)
William J Murray's posting privileges were suspended when he posted slander based on libel. Now he's got 'em back, and posts what amounts to one heaping pile o' Guano.

Patrick is right that TSZ is broken, when such dreck is considered appropriate fodder for discussion.

Oh, and Mung? I really hope you get paid by the post. Otherwise...well, it keeps you off the streets, I guess. And, I hope, out of classrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get the feeling Mung is a lonely old man who just likes to shit-stir for the attention.

WJM is just a dick no matter how you look at it.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 14 2017,15:17

Frankie, who is not Joe, is in < full meltdown > - very much in the style of Joe, who is not Frankie.

And it's only Tuesday.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 15 2017,04:22

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 14 2017,21:17)
Frankie, who is not Joe, is in < full meltdown > - very much in the style of Joe, who is not Frankie.

And it's only Tuesday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are times I feel quite sorry for him. He just can't help himself.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 15 2017,06:41

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 15 2017,12:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 14 2017,21:17)
Frankie, who is not Joe, is in < full meltdown > - very much in the style of Joe, who is not Frankie.

And it's only Tuesday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are times I feel quite sorry for him. He just can't help himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's his own parody much like Sean Spicer. Lots of hand waving, shouting and alternative "facts". I wonder if he chews gum?

10,000 Joe's randomly typing on keyboards for 10,000 years couldn't produce a Shakespearean play.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 15 2017,07:16

< WJM >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is fact on the ground is that Trump is far exceeding my expectations and apparently the expectations of many if not most of those that voted for him, seeing as his popularity is rising.

I expected there to be quite a bit of drama and problems going in – I actually expected a lot worse than we’ve seen so far. I expect it to get a lot worse. A LOT. As we go forward. I expect there to be a lot more firings and bureaucratic throughput as Trump and his team sort out whom they can trust and who is actively acting to sabotage his agenda.

You think Flynn is going to be as serious as it gets? Flynn ain’t shit compared to the attempt at a power coup the 9th circuit just invoked. And just wait until Trump fires Priebus. The shit’s really going to be flying then. The corrupt marxist/fascist establishment is being laid bare for all to see.

You really don’t have any idea what Trump is doing, do you? You guys are working off the same playbook that got Trump elected in the first place. You have no idea what’s coming or what Trump’s end-game is.

Or maybe you do. Maybe you’re just another pizza-loving globalist troll trying to talk your way out of the populist/nationalist uprising.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Feb. 16 2017,18:13

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 15 2017,06:41)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 15 2017,12:22)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 14 2017,21:17)
Frankie, who is not Joe, is in < full meltdown > - very much in the style of Joe, who is not Frankie.

And it's only Tuesday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are times I feel quite sorry for him. He just can't help himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's his own parody much like Sean Spicer. Lots of hand waving, shouting and alternative "facts". I wonder if he chews gum?

10,000 Joe's randomly typing on keyboards for 10,000 years couldn't produce a Shakespearean play.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FrankenJoe has now been banned from TSZ, temporarily.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 16 2017,20:19

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 09 2017,10:51)
Quote (clamboy @ Feb. 09 2017,00:22)
William J Murray's posting privileges were suspended when he posted slander based on libel. Now he's got 'em back, and posts what amounts to one heaping pile o' Guano.

Patrick is right that TSZ is broken, when such dreck is considered appropriate fodder for discussion.

Oh, and Mung? I really hope you get paid by the post. Otherwise...well, it keeps you off the streets, I guess. And, I hope, out of classrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get the feeling Mung is a lonely old man who just likes to shit-stir for the attention.

WJM is just a dick no matter how you look at it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mung makes me think "DaveScot."  Can write little without a sneer, bitter at science/scientists (not quite sure why), thinks he's quite smart when he's not very, thinks he knows a lot from reading (autodidact) and doesn't, self-important, quite well-off (he insists on making large bets at TSZ), and thinking he's quite clever (again, not very).  Texan, from working class stock, not really with the fundies, and accepting the evidence for evolution while believing in the ID that should screw up the evidence for evolution (Behe's equally illogical about that).

If he is DaveScot, that could be why he's such a hideous troll, he wants to keep remarks minimal so he doesn't sound too much like DaveScot.

Anyhow, if not DaveScot, someone a lot like him.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 16 2017,20:32

I should add that Mung doesn't seem very adept at programming, but, again, may be trying to fake that.  He came up with a dumb Weasel program, however, it looked like he was spoofing.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 17 2017,06:11

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 17 2017,02:32)
I should add that Mung doesn't seem very adept at programming, but, again, may be trying to fake that.  He came up with a dumb Weasel program, however, it looked like he was spoofing.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, though it took more effort to write than a sensible one, to no apparent end.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2017,08:58

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 09 2017,11:51)
Quote (clamboy @ Feb. 09 2017,00:22)
William J Murray's posting privileges were suspended when he posted slander based on libel. Now he's got 'em back, and posts what amounts to one heaping pile o' Guano.

Patrick is right that TSZ is broken, when such dreck is considered appropriate fodder for discussion.

Oh, and Mung? I really hope you get paid by the post. Otherwise...well, it keeps you off the streets, I guess. And, I hope, out of classrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get the feeling Mung is a lonely old man who just likes to shit-stir for the attention.

WJM is just a dick no matter how you look at it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WJM is one of the stupidest people I've ever seen. And my relatives are from Kentucky.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2017,08:59

He's the kinda person you have to explain to how to wash his hands.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 17 2017,09:10

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2017,14:11)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 17 2017,02:32)
I should add that Mung doesn't seem very adept at programming, but, again, may be trying to fake that.  He came up with a dumb Weasel program, however, it looked like he was spoofing.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, though it took more effort to write than a sensible one, to no apparent end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that were the case then he'ld be a double crossing ostensible ID agent. Pretending to be on their side but colaborating with the forces of ...er.."evolutionism" in a thinly veiled hoax that only ID Tards would believe. Or he's just simply a very stupid but savant ID apologist. For my money he's not smart enough to be the former given the shotgun sized hole that his brain has which most people need to think properly with.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 17 2017,11:00

Chubs got a 30 day TSZ ban, is crying about it on his blog.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 17 2017,11:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2017,17:00)
Chubs got a 30 day TSZ ban, is crying about it on his blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait - Frankie was Joe G? Well don't that just beat all! :)

His work there is done.
Posted by: Pilchard on Feb. 17 2017,18:34

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2017,17:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2017,17:00)
Chubs got a 30 day TSZ ban, is crying about it on his blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait - Frankie was Joe G? Well don't that just beat all! :)

His work there is done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 18 2017,02:59

Quote (Pilchard @ Feb. 18 2017,00:34)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2017,17:56)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2017,17:00)
Chubs got a 30 day TSZ ban, is crying about it on his blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait - Frankie was Joe G? Well don't that just beat all! :)

His work there is done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


He'd have gotten away with it too ...
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 27 2017,18:24

Fifthmonarchyman



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If God stopped every vicious dog from attacking every child what would be our incentive to keep dangerous dogs away from helpless children?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< oooohh yeeaahhh >


Posted by: Cubist on Feb. 27 2017,20:51

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 16 2017,20:19)

Mung… [is] quite well-off (he insists on making large bets at TSZ)…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sure about that? Paying off on "large bets" is good evidence of being "quite well-off". Offering to make "large bets" is not the same thing at all. And… has anybody ever taken Mung up on any of those "large bets" of his?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 06 2017,17:31

A pretty funny thread is active over at TSZ at the moment. In WJM throws ID under the bus Allan Miller quotes a full comment from WJMurray at UD complaining about the shortfalls of evolutionary* theory, in which he never specifically mentions evolution. Given the title it is apparent (to most, anyway) that his complaints could apply equally to ID.

WJM is quick to come to his own defence claiming that he has been quote mined. When it is pointed out that he has been quoted fully he still claims that is still a quote mine because the OP should have been titled something like WJM unintentionally throws ID under the bus, and of course he meant evolution and not ID, and anyway all of the TSZ regulars are just moral relativists, and, and...
It's another reminder that irony is a foreign concept to WJM specifically, and UD/ID generally.

Hilarious - < TSZ link >

ETA *Oops, and climate change too.


Posted by: clamboy on Mar. 06 2017,18:51

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 07 2017,13:25

Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,16:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, but, but... Levin's a lawyer!  And he worked for Ed Meese!  What better credentials could there be?
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 07 2017,15:41

Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,18:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I've been saying for a while: In the absence of active moderation, any online forum will eventually degenerate into a content-free, troll-ridden cesspool.

TSZ has never had active moderation, but then it started out with a decent supply of people who really did want to argue in good faith. So it began with a kind of analog to 'founder effect' operating at first. Sadly, there has never been any serious attempt to restrict TSZ participation to people who prefer good-faith argument over trollish bullshit… I mean, good lord, it took posting porn to get JoeG banned, and he's back with a new sockpuppet ID, completely unchanged!

IMAO, the only interesting things about TSZ at the moment are, first, that the degeneration took as long as it has, and second, how much longer it'll be until the last good-faith-aligned participant abandons TSZ to the kooks and bigots and trolls.
Posted by: clamboy on Mar. 07 2017,21:54

Cubist, thank you for your spot-on analysis. I would add, in terms of banning, JoeG was rightly banned for porn but then blithely let back in, while WJM posted SLANDER BASED ON LIBEL and only had his original posting privileges suspended (ETA: and of course he get those privileges back - WHAT?!?). That still boggles my mind.

You are right, the ridiculous anti-moderation philosophy has led to TSZ being in deep doo-doo as a forum. The awesome anti-UD heyday it once had is gone, though bright lights still shine through sometimes, and so I return to lurk. I know, someone might ask why I don't post and post and post in an attempt to clean the soot off the brass, but its trolly morass warns me off.

I will say, however, that you are also right about the looooong descent of TSZ, longer than many unmoderated places. Much of that does have to do with the venerable spirit in which it was founded, and I think that what moderation has continued to be there has been, on the whole, decent. Guano was, and remains, a good idea, as well as Noyau. They helped to keep things free yet under proper control, despite what some rather silly people say. As a "very light moderation" experiment, I think Lizzie did quite well. When TSZ was at its best, it reminded me of parents I know who raised their children with clearly set boundaries, and stuck to those boundaries, but let their children be free within those boundaries.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Mar. 07 2017,22:11

Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,18:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.
Posted by: clamboy on Mar. 08 2017,00:30

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 07 2017,22:11)
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,18:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 08 2017,13:23

Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 08 2017,01:30)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 07 2017,22:11)
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,18:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be clear, I do not subscribe to the pizza gate conspiracy.  I'm also not fan of either WJM or vjtorley.  I am a fan of free speech, though.

For everyone here complaining about the light moderation at TSZ, what do you suggest?  Who would you ban or censor?  What benefit do you think would come from doing so?  Have you considered the costs?

Even if you don't share my free speech absolutism, do you really want Mung forced out onto the wider 'net?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 08 2017,15:54

Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 07 2017,16:54)
Cubist, thank you for your spot-on analysis. I would add, in terms of banning, JoeG was rightly banned for porn but then blithely let back in, while WJM posted SLANDER BASED ON LIBEL and only had his original posting privileges suspended (ETA: and of course he get those privileges back - WHAT?!?). That still boggles my mind.

You are right, the ridiculous anti-moderation philosophy has led to TSZ being in deep doo-doo as a forum. The awesome anti-UD heyday it once had is gone, though bright lights still shine through sometimes, and so I return to lurk. I know, someone might ask why I don't post and post and post in an attempt to clean the soot off the brass, but its trolly morass warns me off.

I will say, however, that you are also right about the looooong descent of TSZ, longer than many unmoderated places. Much of that does have to do with the venerable spirit in which it was founded, and I think that what moderation has continued to be there has been, on the whole, decent. Guano was, and remains, a good idea, as well as Noyau. They helped to keep things free yet under proper control, despite what some rather silly people say. As a "very light moderation" experiment, I think Lizzie did quite well. When TSZ was at its best, it reminded me of parents I know who raised their children with clearly set boundaries, and stuck to those boundaries, but let their children be free within those boundaries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two minor matters of fact:

William J Murray does not have automatic posting rights. They were rescinded after the "Pizzagate" post. Any OPs he writes require admin approval before publishing.

JoeG's sockpuppeting was tolerated for far too long but, absent Lizzie's input, admins had to agree before action. A committee is not the quickest form of decision making.

On the other hand, I appreciate what you say about Lizzie's original aim and objective and how the experiment was worth the effort and some good stuff got written and, I hope, read and enjoyed.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 08 2017,16:03

Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 08 2017,08:23)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 08 2017,01:30)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 07 2017,22:11)
   
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,18:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be clear, I do not subscribe to the pizza gate conspiracy.  I'm also not fan of either WJM or vjtorley.  I am a fan of free speech, though.

For everyone here complaining about the light moderation at TSZ, what do you suggest?  Who would you ban or censor?  What benefit do you think would come from doing so?  Have you considered the costs?

Even if you don't share my free speech absolutism, do you really want Mung forced out onto the wider 'net?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think of the minimal moderation we try and keep to at TSZ as editorial control rather than censorship. It is easy to support the home side,  harder to be fair to the lone dissenter.

I also think in terms of a venue like a convivial pub or cafe. For the majority of the time for the vast majority of customers, the landlord can smile benignly and join in with the chat. Occasionally he needs to exert a little discipline.

There's a continuum between North Korea and Bedlam.
Posted by: clamboy on Mar. 08 2017,19:44

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 08 2017,15:54)
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 07 2017,16:54)
Cubist, thank you for your spot-on analysis. I would add, in terms of banning, JoeG was rightly banned for porn but then blithely let back in, while WJM posted SLANDER BASED ON LIBEL and only had his original posting privileges suspended (ETA: and of course he get those privileges back - WHAT?!?). That still boggles my mind.

You are right, the ridiculous anti-moderation philosophy has led to TSZ being in deep doo-doo as a forum. The awesome anti-UD heyday it once had is gone, though bright lights still shine through sometimes, and so I return to lurk. I know, someone might ask why I don't post and post and post in an attempt to clean the soot off the brass, but its trolly morass warns me off.

I will say, however, that you are also right about the looooong descent of TSZ, longer than many unmoderated places. Much of that does have to do with the venerable spirit in which it was founded, and I think that what moderation has continued to be there has been, on the whole, decent. Guano was, and remains, a good idea, as well as Noyau. They helped to keep things free yet under proper control, despite what some rather silly people say. As a "very light moderation" experiment, I think Lizzie did quite well. When TSZ was at its best, it reminded me of parents I know who raised their children with clearly set boundaries, and stuck to those boundaries, but let their children be free within those boundaries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Two minor matters of fact:

William J Murray does not have automatic posting rights. They were rescinded after the "Pizzagate" post. Any OPs he writes require admin approval before publishing.

JoeG's sockpuppeting was tolerated for far too long but, absent Lizzie's input, admins had to agree before action. A committee is not the quickest form of decision making.

On the other hand, I appreciate what you say about Lizzie's original aim and objective and how the experiment was worth the effort and some good stuff got written and, I hope, read and enjoyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Alan, for clarifying WJM's posting rights. I still think that the original post he made after he was re-granted provisional rights was a heapin' helpin' o' seagull poop, and should have been relegated as such. And while I don't ascribe to public self-shaming, as long as you were asking JoeG to acknowledge his sins, you might have made a similar though different effort with WJM. I think his original post consisting of slander could well be seen as equivalent to JoeG's porn post.

JoeG should remain permanently banned, but that also remains just my opinion. And again, in my opinion, WJM ought to be denied original posting privileges, period - at TSZ, that is.

I have tried to make clear that I truly respect the efforts of the moderators at TSZ, in your attempts to keep Lizzie's ship aright in a maelstrom of trolls. If my comments do not reflect that respect, I apologize.
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 09 2017,11:19

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 08 2017,17:03)
Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 08 2017,08:23)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 08 2017,01:30)
   
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 07 2017,22:11)
   
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 06 2017,18:51)
What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be clear, I do not subscribe to the pizza gate conspiracy.  I'm also not fan of either WJM or vjtorley.  I am a fan of free speech, though.

For everyone here complaining about the light moderation at TSZ, what do you suggest?  Who would you ban or censor?  What benefit do you think would come from doing so?  Have you considered the costs?

Even if you don't share my free speech absolutism, do you really want Mung forced out onto the wider 'net?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think of the minimal moderation we try and keep to at TSZ as editorial control rather than censorship. It is easy to support the home side,  harder to be fair to the lone dissenter.

I also think in terms of a venue like a convivial pub or cafe. For the majority of the time for the vast majority of customers, the landlord can smile benignly and join in with the chat. Occasionally he needs to exert a little discipline.

There's a continuum between North Korea and Bedlam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the intersection of the two is UD.
Posted by: Woodbine on April 19 2017,06:32


Posted by: fnxtr on April 19 2017,08:48

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....8dx-h8M >
Posted by: k.e.. on April 19 2017,08:56

I agree that Byers brain doesn't think it is a brain.


Posted by: stevestory on April 19 2017,10:15

Quote (fnxtr @ April 19 2017,09:48)
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....8dx-h8M >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Byers was hopelessly addicted to bath salts and veterinary tranquilizers, that might explain a few things.
Posted by: clamboy on April 19 2017,22:41

KN provided, in "Moderation Issues", a pretty good defense, or maybe explanation, of fifthmonarchyman's behavior, pointing out that FMM does not, and indeed can not, use words according to their generally accepted definitions, and that when FMM says that all people know the Christian god exists and is the only god capable of existing, FMM really does mean it.

FMM and their position of presuppositionalism makes me want to write an original post, in light of the spike in sales of the novel "1984" since last November's American election. FMM reminds me of O'Brien, especially when that character is talking to Winston Smith in the Ministry of Love after Smith's arrest and routine torture. Smith foolishly attempts to use reason when responding to O'Brien, as if O'Brien could actually be convinced that his position is even questionable. When Patrick (sorry to pick on you again, Patrick) demands that FMM "put up or shut up", that is the equivalent of Smith demanding O'Brien defend his, or rather, The Party's, view. To FMM, Patrick is, like Smith to O'Brien, insane. (Further ETA: the same holds for keiths, who continues to point out what, to many, would be considered proper points of contention. But again, keiths is, to FMM, insane.)

I hope that makes sense. I have been doing some reading on presuppositionalism, pro and con, and I think my take is a right one. Debate is impossible since, for FMM, holding a position contrary to theirs is, by definition, irrational (ETA: and you already know that FMM's position is the correct one, you are simply stuck in - what? - a state of rebellion against what you know to be true). It's weird, but that is what presuppositionalism entails.
Posted by: stevestory on April 20 2017,00:30

You can't use reason to argue against a presupposationalist, because they assume that your reasoning, lacking the necessary christian perspective, must be inferior to their belief. But it's a double-edged sword. Since our reasoning must be defective, what hope is there that he can convince us that he's correct? None. According to his own argument he's pointlessly wasting his time.

FMM is lost in an especially labyrinthine form of cluelessness.
Posted by: clamboy on April 20 2017,00:48

Except, FMM has repeatedly asserted that they are not proposing an argument. FMM is merely stating what they know (for a certain definition of "know") to be true.

Wacky, yes, but the wacky interests me.
Posted by: stevestory on April 20 2017,10:08

But he's not just picking random internet pages and making random comments. Saying what he's saying, where he's saying it, implies some kinda argumentation. Although FMM is incredibly clueless, so I suppose he doesn't understand that either.

Sakes alive, I just went and checked out the latest three comment threads, and it's a garbage dump over there. 4-5 people quarreling over who insulted who and whether or not it was justified.

Ugh.


Posted by: stevestory on April 20 2017,10:12

In general, most good websites have a clear purpose. If TSZ has one, I haven't divined what it is.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 20 2017,12:56

Quote (stevestory @ April 20 2017,08:12)
In general, most good websites have a clear purpose. If TSZ has one, I haven't divined what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To be the. Monster Trucks mudpit of ID?
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 20 2017,15:29

Quote (stevestory @ April 20 2017,05:12)
In general, most good websites have a clear purpose. If TSZ has one, I haven't divined what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could read the "about" page. Dr Elizabeth Liddle, the blog founder and owner, sets out her stall quite clearly. On the other hand, her last active participation (apart from one comment in November 2016) was back in January, 2016.

She built it. People came. Any forum is only as good as the people that contribute.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 20 2017,15:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FMM and their position of presuppositionalism makes me want to write an original post, in light of the spike in sales of the novel "1984" since last November's American election.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You'd be very welcome! I see you are already registered there.
Posted by: Patrick on April 20 2017,22:11

Quote (clamboy @ April 19 2017,23:41)
When Patrick (sorry to pick on you again, Patrick) demands that FMM "put up or shut up", that is the equivalent of Smith demanding O'Brien defend his, or rather, The Party's, view. To FMM, Patrick is, like Smith to O'Brien, insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pick away.

I'm not yet personally insane enough to expect FMM to actually support his views.  It is, however, The Skeptical Zone, so I feel something of an obligation to keep asking.
Posted by: Patrick on April 20 2017,22:12

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 20 2017,16:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FMM and their position of presuppositionalism makes me want to write an original post, in light of the spike in sales of the novel "1984" since last November's American election.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You'd be very welcome! I see you are already registered there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hear, hear!
Posted by: JohnW on May 31 2017,15:12

I was amused to see < this > at TSZ:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My talk addresses the design of chromatin and the problem of evil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not satire, it's Sal.
Posted by: Quack on June 02 2017,13:28

Saltire?
Posted by: clamboy on June 14 2017,19:48

Despite forays into civilized discussion, phoodoo remains a horrific troll, and continues to sink and sink:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-179079 >
Posted by: paragwinn on Aug. 12 2017,00:12

Something with which to set off a chain reaction of explodey heads at TSZ: Stochastic Supertasks < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....V0L99sw >
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 12 2017,00:51

Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 11 2017,22:12)
Something with which to set off a chain reaction of explodey heads at TSZ: Stochastic Supertasks < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....V0L99sw >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Oh, fuck off." -- Xeno.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Aug. 14 2017,03:49

If you've ever wondered why Salvador Cordova gets referred to as the human shit stain look no further than his latest < comment > on the thread on the violence and death in Charlottesville at TSZ. It begins
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn’t vote for Trump, I’m an immigrant, I’m not white, I think Nazi’s[sic] and white supremacists are scary and evil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and of course the next word is    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on Aug. 15 2017,11:57

Martin Luther Byers

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m Canadian.

first you use the term African american. then you use the term white. So these Africans get a title that gives a segregated identity but you deny Southeners a segregated identity. they are just white. like Swedes or Polish.

Words matter. Terms matter.
In reality there is no such thing as racism. its a left wing invention like,m anti-semitism, xenophobia, sexism , homophobia etc etc etc.
To discredit conclusions or opinions of one people group toward another.
These conclusions/opinions can be right or wrong, good or evil. thats not the point.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACISM.

Southeners always were a morally better people then the ‘africans” in the south.

However both people groups were segregated in heart and in body as far as they could be.
anyone alive today knows blacks think/live as segregated as can be.
they never, as pretended, meant to become colour blind single people group.
I have no moral problem with old southern segregationism by the southerners.
ON:Y that it was illegal after the blacks became citizens and its a aggressive insistance that they would not accept/assimilate blacks like they did everyone else. europeans especially.
That was the only sin. Mostly Southerners treated blacks with respect and kindness, and blacks right back. most people were good though determined to live segregated.
Those days are over. Southeners don’t desire anymore to live like another segregated group. Like in New York city.
Its the “africans” who want to think and live segregated.
They cause the injustice and unhappiness more then southeners.
On a curve.

The Southener has not just become a republican but finally a true American. In fact he is called, as you are witness, WHITE. No different then white yankees.
He has finally graduated. likewise many of the earlier european tribes.

You know the tree by the fruit.
People calling themselves after a foreign continent are people saying identity is important and segregation is okay. They just don’t want to be the losers.
You should of taught Southern kids to get both sides. Then or now.

All these problems come from the historic ethnic identities who congregate in the democratic party. Starting with the old Southeners etc.
They provoke tiny, tiny, tiny, numbers of ‘whites”.

There is not a moral equality between the people groups in America or Canada.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 15 2017,15:02

If Byers insists that racism doesn't exist, I can understand why he doesn't believe brains exist--it takes one to know one
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 15 2017,15:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mostly Southerners treated blacks with respect and kindness, and blacks right back. most people were good though determined to live segregated.
Those days are over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In this past sunday's episode of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, Cecil talks about an in-law telling him this very thing. I think Cecil's take on it was something like "That's Fucking Stupid."
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 15 2017,19:51

Can I just apologize on behalf of Canada again?
Thank you.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 16 2017,08:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stcordova August 15, 2017 at 8:40 am
Robert Byers:


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

Southeners always were a morally better people then the ‘africans” in the south.

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


That’s a reprehensible thing to say.

You say a lot of dumb crap. In fact it some of the stuff you say is so over the top idiotic, I thought you were a Darwinist pretending to be creationist.

I’ve let some of the dumb crap you say go because you’re a creationist and usually on my side of the issues, but this is over the top.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< linky >
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 16 2017,09:02

The slavedrivers were morally better than the slaves.


Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 16 2017,09:06

phoodoo's gettin all racist too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
phoodoo: Look Sal, I am sure there are a lot of dark skinned people like you that actually work hard and don’t rape white girls.There must be.But frankly, I don’t like my tax dollars going to them, just because they have never been caught stealing cars in east L.A.

Do you know we send 300 million dollars in aid every year south of the border, so those deadbeats can use that money to buy avocados and then sneak through the desert like rattlesnakes to come steal American jobs and suck off America’s tit?

I notice you didn’t mention anything about border security when you said where you want your tax dollars going.And when your cousins come here to sell burritos, who is going to teach them English, you expect the government to do that?Aren’t there enough Americans who want to get into colleges now as it is, we gotta let those who didn’t help build America take those spots?

When is enough enough Sal?

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

<

I thought it was us darwinists who were the initiators of racism? >


Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Aug. 16 2017,09:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung August 16, 2017 at 3:22 am
keiths: I’m willing to bet that this thread will devolve into an exercise in word weaseling by Mung. It appears to be headed that way already.

I’ll donate $100.00 to charity if you define cumulative selection. 🙂

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



I don't see where Mung indicates it has to be an accurate or accepted definition of cumulative selection, so any old definition should work.

As Mung routinely holds people to their written words, will someone please post some sort of definition, hold him to his written words, ask him to stay true to his words, and pay up?
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 16 2017,13:37

Cumulative selection - is that where the gene pool accumulates variations that enhance a useful feature or ability?
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 16 2017,14:29

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 16 2017,07:02)
The slavedrivers were morally better than the slaves.


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


Of course.  That's why god rewarded them by letting them have slaves.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 16 2017,18:15

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 16 2017,15:29)
Of course.  That's why god rewarded them by letting them have slaves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have a career in Prosperity Gospel Preaching.


Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 09 2017,13:34


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 10 2017,10:40

Mung better hope he's not a white guy living in America.

or, secondly, anyone living anywhere.
Posted by: clamboy on Oct. 26 2017,23:31

Good lord 'n butter! How can I miss you, J-Mac, if you won't leave???
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 09 2017,19:01


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 09 2017,19:53

I see Sal "the human shit stain" Cordova has decided to use TSZ as his own personal pulpit for preaching.  The gospel according to Sal of course.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 09 2017,21:00

He's shilling someone called Joel Osteen.



Now there's a face you can trust.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 09 2017,21:20

You'd think with all his money he'd pick a better set of dentures.
Posted by: Acartia_Bogart on Nov. 09 2017,22:50

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 09 2017,21:20)
You'd think with all his money he'd pick a better set of dentures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you a denture racist?
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 10 2017,08:38

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 10 2017,06:50)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 09 2017,21:20)
You'd think with all his money he'd pick a better set of dentures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you a denture racist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His bark is bigger than his bite.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2017,10:03

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 09 2017,21:00)
He's shilling someone called Joel Osteen.



Now there's a face you can trust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the dick who wouldn't let hurricane victims in Houston use his mega-church as a shelter because he didn't want the carpets being soiled.  A real Godly man for sure.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.