Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,13:50

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for < some good laughs >, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, < Telic Thoughts. > It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 22 2007,15:47

Talking about educated creationists, we have Daniel Smith here. I don't know him but he seems more familiar with science.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,16:39

yeah. I haven't had a chance to read his thread much yet, but he does look a cut above the AFDave FtK class of creationist.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,17:22

I haven't read much Telic Thoughts. The contributors there seem pretty diverse. So far, all I can tell is Mike Gene has at least some brains, and Bradford is an idiot.
Posted by: ck1 on Sep. 22 2007,17:25

Is Mike Gene a professional biologist?  Ph.D.?  

I know his/her identity is secret, but what is known about Gene?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 22 2007,19:09

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,17:22)
I haven't read much Telic Thoughts. The contributors there seem pretty diverse. So far, all I can tell is Mike Gene has at least some brains, and Bradford is an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Joy is insane.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 22 2007,21:32

Uncommon Descent has been off-line a lot, and when they do blog, it's mostly non-science topics. AtBC has a very robust peanut gallery for these non-science topics, so I've been commenting over at Telic Thoughts. (By the way, MikeGene has a rabbit theme.)

Wonders for Oyarsa posted an interesting simulation, < The Amazing Toxic Asexual Bunny Mutation Simulator >. But it didn't show what he thought it did.

Wonders for Oyarsa thought that for evolution to find a specific beneficial mutation, junk portions of the genome would become scrambled. In fact, evolution can try all sorts of mutations and then discard them before fixation. This was pointed out in the very first comment. But of course, it had no impact on the discussion whatsoever.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Raevmo >: Kimura showed mathematically that for a neutral mutation the fixation rate is identical to the mutation rate (independently of population size).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amusingly, Wonders for Oyarsa overlooked genetic fixation occurring right before his eyes.

Fluffy Bunnies has a very small genome, so only about 30% of the original junk typically remains. But even that significant portion should have been a clue that his intuition was wrong. I suggested that Wonders for Oyarsa approach his intuition skeptically, to make an attempt at falsification— to no avail.

< >

In response, I posted < KILLER RABBITS, Not-so-fluffy Bunnies >. To his credit, I do think that Wonders for Oyarsa tried to learn from the exchange.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,22:51

Mike Gene seems to be denying that there is an ID community. So maybe I was too optimistic and they're a bunch of idiots too.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-neg....scovery >

I'm withholding judgment. It's still early.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 22 2007,23:28

Hi Steve,

When MikeGene and I get into heated discussions it is usually over what I call "Shield Bashing".

A lot of people at Telic Thoughts (including MikeGene) take the tactical position of claiming to be oppressed.  It makes it easier to complain.

Bradford takes it to an extreme.  He appears to be fairly knowledgeable but often uses that knowledge to be bombastic.

BTW, I don't know if you are aware of this.  I think MikeGene split off from the "ID community" to form Telic Thoughts because of fundamental disagreements with people running ARN.

Personally, I think there was a spark of earnest interest in doing science when Darwin's Black Box came out.  I agree with Dawkins' review that DBB was better, in this regard, than Edge of Evolution.

I suggest the ID MOVEMENT decided to go the PR route.  Behe changed his definition of IC and the one ID Hypothesis that came close to being scientific, EAM, was abandoned.

In short, I think you are pressing some hot buttons with MikeGene.  Yes, he is biased in blaming the “ID critics” for shutting down explorations but note the title bar declaration “Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.”  

The word “independent” is obviously intentional.  If there is an “ID Community”, MikeGene and Telic Thoughts don’t consider themselves part of it.

You may also want to look at their “About Us” description.

There is some history there.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 22 2007,23:34

Hi Jam,

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that a problem for you? :D

Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.

You might also find her political leanings surprising.  (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president).
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:35

Thanks for the info. I don't know anything about the history there. I wrote a post on Telic Thoughts but deleted it. If someone's complaining that ID, with its millions of dollars and hundreds of supposed scientists, can't succeed because the community isn't large enough, well, I'm not sure I can talk to a person like that.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:37

comment, I meant. Not post.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2007,03:33

The ex-UD commenter < Bilbo > appears capable of independent thought.

Edit: ps < Here too >
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Sep. 23 2007,04:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, he is biased in blaming the “ID critics” for shutting down explorations but note the title bar declaration “Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.”  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, they are considerably incorrect there. ID killed itself by being a dead lifeless duck scientifically and producing no testable hypotheses or data. When I challenged Mike Gene in the past to demonstrate an actual testable hypothesis for ID, the usual retreat to "What would evolution do" came up, completely dodging what I was actually asking.

But in general, Telic Thoughts is a veritable fertile field of actual positive thinking about ID compared to cesspools of stupidity like UD. It's completely unfair to compare TT to UD, as TT has intelligent discussions on their site, doesn't suppress comments from those who disagree with them and actually have credibility (see the Dr. Pianka incident from a while ago).

Stevestory.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike Gene seems to be denying that there is an ID community. So maybe I was too optimistic and they're a bunch of idiots too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Although I still think TT talks a whole load of nonsense (like about Front Loading, I've still never seen them actually put down a proper testable prediction of this), they are far from idiots and if we take UD as being the "ID community", then I would not blame the group at TT from wanting to have no association with it.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 23 2007,05:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
like about Front Loading, I've still never seen them actually put down a proper testable prediction of this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, but < someone has >.  In a journal that is sometimes peer reviewed.  It's still a pile of crap, but it's a published pile of crap with predictions.

Bob
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 23 2007,05:27

JAM wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thought Provoker responded:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP,

Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.

Joy on superconductivity in biology:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such an act of total measurement - the 'snapshot' - would collapse all sustained quantum states in the person being copied - including condensed matter/gel states, superconduction and molecular electron sharing, superpositions, etc. - thereby rendering that person DEAD. Mere decomposing raw matter in 4D.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy on the conspiracy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just one example.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2007,06:28

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2007,00:27)
JAM wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thought Provoker responded:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP,

Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.

Joy on superconductivity in biology:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such an act of total measurement - the 'snapshot' - would collapse all sustained quantum states in the person being copied - including condensed matter/gel states, superconduction and molecular electron sharing, superpositions, etc. - thereby rendering that person DEAD. Mere decomposing raw matter in 4D.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy on the conspiracy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!;), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just one example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, nobody's perfect, Keith. :D

I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,09:51

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2007,04:33)
The ex-UD commenter < Bilbo > appears capable of independent thought.

Edit: ps < Here too >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good for Bilbo.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,09:54

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2007,06:27)
Joy on the conspiracy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just one example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,10:19

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 23 2007,04:33)
It's completely unfair to compare TT to UD, as TT has intelligent discussions on their site, doesn't suppress comments from those who disagree with them...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are incorrect on that count.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,10:20

Hi Keiths,

You wrote...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joy is quite capable to defending herself.  MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.  If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use. Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life.

It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity.

This is from Berkley Lab's Research News.  The article is titled Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BERKELEY, CA —Through photosynthesis, green plants and cyanobacteria are able to transfer sunlight energy to molecular reaction centers for conversion into chemical energy with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key – the transfer of the solar energy takes place almost instantaneously so little energy is wasted as heat. How photosynthesis achieves this near instantaneous energy transfer is a long-standing mystery that may have finally been solved.
...
Electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) time-scale showed these oscillations meeting and interfering constructively, forming wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can explore all potential energy pathways simultaneously and reversibly, meaning they can retreat from wrong pathways with no penalty. This finding contradicts the classical description of the photosynthetic energy transfer process as one in which excitation energy hops from light-capturing pigment molecules to reaction center molecules step-by-step down the molecular energy ladder.

“The classical hopping description of the energy transfer process is both inadequate and inaccurate,” said Fleming. “It gives the wrong picture of how the process actually works, and misses a crucial aspect of the reason for the wonderful efficiency.”

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


< link >

And, of course, there is the Orch OR model of consciousness put forward by Sir Rodger Penrose and Dr. Hameroff....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this paper we propose that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of quantum wave function "self-collapse"(objective reduction: OR -Penrose, 1994) are essential for consciousness, and occur in cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. The particular characteristics of microtubules suitable for quantum effects include their crystal-like lattice structure, hollow inner core, organization of cell function and capacity for information processing. We envisage that conformational states of microtubule subunits (tubulins) are coupled to internal quantum events, and cooperatively interact (compute) with other tubulins. We further assume that macroscopic coherent superposition of quantum-coupled tubulin conformational states occurs throughout significant brain volumes and provides the global binding essential to consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >

DNA strands are used to build artificial quantum computers.

IMO, the question gets turned around.  What makes you think life ISN'T dependent on quantum superposition and superconductivity?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,10:23

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 22 2007,23:34)
Hi Jam,

You wrote...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that a problem for you? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have my sympathies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might also find her political leanings surprising.  (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all. That doesn't mean that she's not insane. Her support of the lies of the animal-rights movement is not surprising, either.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,10:46

Hi JAM,

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She is not knowledgeable at all in the field of biology, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree, Joy's expertise appears to be more in understanding physics as opposed to biology.  And, yes, she does have an unusual philosophical outlook (which she admits to).

What she brings to the table is the thought that it may be time to quit treating the different scientific disciplines as separate.  Biologists can't continue to ignore General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

This concept is what drives Sir Rodger Penrose.  Combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics results in some interesting conclusions.  While many people don't like the implications, Penrose's OR quantum interpretation is testable and is being tested.  So far, it has never been falsified.  Penrose also provides verifiable equations, E=h/t may become the next E=mc^2.  Penrose is making a specific proposal for the timing of quantum superposition collapse.

It is obvious that Penrose has convinced himself (and others) of the solidity of the basic OR quantum model long ago.  Once he considered it a given, Penrose started to look in its implications.  Its implications to the study of consciousness is potentially very profound.  However, like Joy, Penrose wasn’t as strong in biology as physics.  This resulted in Penrose teaming up with a scientist who has dedicated his professional life to the study of consciousness, Dr, Hameroff.  The Orch OR model of consciousness was introduced about 10 years ago.

Joy claims to be a “professional fool”.  Sometimes listening to fools allows you to think outside artificial barriers of thinking (“outside the box”).

P.S. for those interested here is the link to < www.hameroff.com >
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:26

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False again.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,11:31

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,12:26)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False again.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:33

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:46)

I agree, Joy's expertise appears to be more in understanding physics as opposed to biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With the emphasis on "appears." Given her rank dishonesty about biological subjects, I suspect that she's just as dishonest and/or deluded about physics.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What she brings to the table is the thought that it may be time to quit treating the different scientific disciplines as separate.  Biologists can't continue to ignore General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you offer any evidence that would allow me to conclude that biologists do ignore these subjects? I certainly don't consider them separate.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This concept is what drives Sir Rodger Penrose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) How would you know what drives him?
2) If it doesn't drive him to test hypotheses, he's not very driven.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics results in some interesting conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science is about testing hypotheses, not about generating interesting conclusions.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While many people don't like the implications, Penrose's OR quantum interpretation is testable and is being tested.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then point me to the data instead of his speculations.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its implications to the study of consciousness is potentially very profound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Potentially, yes. Probably, not at all.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy claims to be a “professional fool”.  Sometimes listening to fools allows you to think outside artificial barriers of thinking (“outside the box”).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes, but not this time.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:36

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2007,11:31)
JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Severely. I've been banned three times, but TP keeps persisting in his fantasy that the folks at TT are tolerant.

Primarily, I've been banned for pointing out obvious ways to test their hypotheses. Most recently, I was banned for arguing with Sal about malaria.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:54

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP, let me explain some of the silliness in this paper:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Several types of studies suggest cytoskeletal involvement in cognition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Penrose omits is the fact that the evidence supporting the involvement of the ACTIN cytoskeleton is an order of magnitude greater than the evidence supporting the involvement of the MICROTUBULE cytoskeleton.

This alone trashes Penrose's credibility in my eyes.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example long term potentiation (LTP) is a form of synaptic plasticity that serves as a model for learning and memory in mammalian hippocampal cortex. LTP requires MAP-2, a dendrite-specific, MT-crosslinking MAP which is dephosphorylated as a result of synaptic membrane receptor activation (e.g. Halpain and Greengard, 1990).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But what else does it require? Penrose doesn't say, and you aren't reading carefully enough to be skeptical.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In cat visual cortex, MAP-2 is dephosphorylated when visual stimulation occurs (Aoki and Siekevitz, 1985).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a cause or an effect, TP? Is this provoking any thought in your head?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Auditory Pavlovian conditioning elevates temporal cortex MAP-2 activity in rats (Woolf et al, 1994). Phosphorylation/ dephosphorylation of MAP-2 accounts for a large proportion of brain biochemical energy consumption (e.g. Theurkauf and Vallee, 1983) and is involved in functions which include strengthening specific networks, such as potentiating excitatory synaptic pathways in rat hippocampus (Montoro et al, 1993).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is trivial relative to the known roles of CaM kinase II, receptor phosphorylation, and receptor trafficking in LTP. Only the last of these (one of the things we study) is known to have any dependence on MTs, and the role of MTs and MAPs may still be constituitive.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mechanism for regulating synaptic function appears related to rearrangement of MAP-2 connections on MTs (Bigot and Hunt, 1990; Friedrich, 1990)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think, TP. "Appears related...," is sufficiently convincing to someone who has the audacity to call himself "Thought Provoker"?

I suggest that you read some LTP reviews from folks in the LTP field and look at the primary literature cited. Very little of it has to do with MTs or MAPs.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2007,12:10

< I see steve's been moonlighting. >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,12:39

Hi JAM,

You asked...


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

Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?

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



I may be wrong about this.  But this was included in the acknowledgement...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citations to "This Volume"refer to Toward a Science of Consciousness, (1996) S Hameroff, A Kaszniak, A Scott (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Also published in Mathematics and Computer Simulation 40:453-480, 1996

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



And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland.

But like I said, I may be wrong.  Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,12:48

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,12:39)
Hi JAM,
You asked...
 

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

Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?

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


I may be wrong about this.  But this was included in the acknowledgement...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citations to "This Volume"refer to Toward a Science of Consciousness, (1996) S Hameroff, A Kaszniak, A Scott (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Also published in Mathematics and Computer Simulation 40:453-480, 1996
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


So what? Neither of those suggest that the paper was peer-reviewed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, come on! That's not what "peer-reviewed" means, and you know it. "Peer-reviewed" means that it is reviewed by peers BEFORE publication, not after.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But like I said, I may be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You probably are. My question is, why would you make such a claim without evidence?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just pathetic, TP. The point is that contributions to the secondary literature are rarely peer-reviewed, while those to the primary literature almost always are. I know that none of the reviews I have published were peer-reviewed.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,13:01

Hi JAM,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Severely. I've been banned three times, but TP keeps persisting in his fantasy that the folks at TT are tolerant.

Primarily, I've been banned for pointing out obvious ways to test their hypotheses. Most recently, I was banned for arguing with Sal about malaria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I remember something about you being banned because you tried to use an alias after being banned previously.

Can you provide a link to the first time you were banned?

I have seen some biased use of sending comments to the memory hole (some of mine have ended up there).

I have only known of one person being banned, that was you.  Zachriel (an ID critic) pressed MikeGene pretty hard about why.  The answer was in reference to your subterfuge.

I have seen some pretty vocal critics on Telic Thoughts that didn't get banned.  Nick Matzke makes regular appearances there.  I have dared MikeGene to simply ask me to leave when the going has gotten tough between us.  He has not done so.

I am of the opinion that I would not stay where I am not welcome.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,13:55

Hi JAM,

Thank you for the opportunity for me to expand my understanding of Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR.

You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What Penrose omits is the fact that the evidence supporting the involvement of the ACTIN cytoskeleton is an order of magnitude greater than the evidence supporting the involvement of the MICROTUBULE cytoskeleton.

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



Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.

I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.


To the quote "In cat visual cortex, MAP-2 is dephosphorylated when visual stimulation occurs (Aoki and Siekevitz, 1985)."

You responded with...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is that a cause or an effect, TP? Is this provoking any thought in your head?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.

Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.

If you are not familiar with Libet, his experiments show a half a second time period of electrical brain activity prior to a conscious decision being made.

Libet's experiments have caused a stir in the study of consciousness.  Playing professional tennis and hitting a fastball should be a physical impossibility.  One answer is that we are helpless observers watching our bodies perform while deluding ourselves with false memories.

Another is that consciousness is a result of orchestrated quantum effects interconnected in both space and time.

Dealing with time as just another dimension is a given in the study of General Relativity.

The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)
< Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks >

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the < EPR Paradox >
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,14:23

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,13:55)
Hi JAM,

Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Explanations aren't enough. Let's do real science, shall we?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You won't get one from me, because it would still be silly, just less silly than hypothesizing that MTs are the source.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm trying to explain to you that attributing the emergent property of consciousness to something as distinct as MTs is laughable.

Since the motile response of a single fibroblast to extracellular cues is an emergent property in which the roles of the actin and MT cytoskeletons are hopelessly intertwined, what reasonable person would assume that consciousness woud be so much simpler?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But dephosphorylation is not quantum mechanics, so you have no point. My point is that Penrose is pointing to things happening in the realm of MTs, while ignoring the much larger number of events that don't involve them. That's why the paper is a crock. You're trying to pretend that they are thinking on a less reductionist plane than I am, when the reality is that they are far more reductionist!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But none of that is relevant to an observation of dephosphorylation of a MAP.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reducing all these things to MTs is just laughable.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The experiment has nothing at all to do with microtubules, TP. Therefore it doesn't even come close to testing a microtubule hypothesis.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 23 2007,14:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  
Quote
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
(emphasis mine)
Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the EPR Paradox
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the result of the experiment was to couple two macroscopic neural cultures, and then see how strongly coupled the state was? How did they deal with decoherence? Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 23 2007,15:31

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2007,11:31)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,12:26)
   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False again.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I attempted to find out the reasons why as I had never seen any behavior deserving expulsion. So I tried the direct approach in a Rabbit Thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: So what happened to JAM?

< MikeGene >: The contributors voted to ban ‘JAM’ for misbehavior with multiple members well over a year ago. Since then, the person has re-entered TT with new screen names, where ‘JAM’ was simply the fifth.

< Zachriel >: You have every right to control your own forum. However, I have never seen any post by JAM that could be construed as "misbehavior". Knowing that he was the same commenter, you nevertheless allowed him to post for quite some time under the nick "JAM", so what prompted the current banning? What other names did he post under?

< Bradford >: The individual we're discussing has resurrected himself under different identities. The initial misbehavoir took place quite some time ago under a different moniker. I am not going into identity details but to answer your question about "allowing," it was not immediately clear what was occuring.

< Zachriel >: That's understandable. Perhaps someone else can explain (on this open thread) why JAM has been accused of "misbehavior".

< Bradford >: Just to be clear. The reason "JAM" was banned centers on deception, namely, making an end run around a process through an identity change. There are other reasons why the individual was initially banned.

< Zachriel >: What reasons? Under what name? As I said, I have seen nothing that can be construed as "misbehavior" by JAM. But I haven't read all of his posts, either. The accusation has been made, and I would like to know the basis of that accusation. As JAM apparently has some knowledge of genetics, I would think his contribution to these discussions would be informative.

< MikeGene >: The misbehavior occurred under the first screen name (and frankly, I don’t recall the details as these things are not important in my life). But this is all irrelevant now and won’t be pursued.

< Zachriel >: That's your choice. I just thought I would ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never did find out why.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,15:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,15:31)
I never did find out why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For pointing to data and offering ways to test hypotheses.
Posted by: Art on Sep. 23 2007,17:09

Telic Thoughts is as averse to facts and exposés that reveal their inconsistencies as any other creationist or ID forum.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,17:15

I'd say it's slightly better than other ID sites. I've put up maybe 10 comments and they've all gone through. Uncommon Descent would have banned me for that, and at FtK's site she would have deleted them all.
Posted by: Joy on Sep. 23 2007,17:17

Now, I ask you... Why in the world would I be disposed to take a new commenter to our blog at face value with this public sideshow going on? [Oy!] ...and you call US "idiots."

JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception. As soon as we had confirmation that a new pseud was him, he was locked back out. What his discussion as the new pseud was to that point on any thread is completely irrelevant - we do not allow banned pseuds to come back as different pseuds.

If/when a commenter's behavior becomes frequently disruptive, off-topic or obsessive to the point of creepy, they're outta there. Among the few who have been banned from TT are both critics and ID supporters. You yourselves apparently banned someone [pseud: "Supersport"] just yesterday for being a troublemaker. If "Supersport" signs in with three or four new pseuds (and you catch him via his computer address info) in the next couple of months, would you count those in your total of "people" banned, or count him and all his pseuds as a single ban?

Point being that one person's personality clash with a commenter isn't enough to get someone banned at TT, and one person's forgiveness doesn't get a banned commenter back into the fold once he's gone. This is completely reasonable. Whether it seems reasonable or not to posters here seeking new and better 'creationists' to play with is not a consideration.

Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 23 2007,17:30

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Now, I ask you... Why in the world would I be disposed to take a new commenter to our blog at face value with this public sideshow going on? [Oy!] ...and you call US "idiots."

JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception. As soon as we had confirmation that a new pseud was him, he was locked back out. What his discussion as the new pseud was to that point on any thread is completely irrelevant - we do not allow banned pseuds to come back as different pseuds.

If/when a commenter's behavior becomes frequently disruptive, off-topic or obsessive to the point of creepy, they're outta there. Among the few who have been banned from TT are both critics and ID supporters. You yourselves apparently banned someone [pseud: "Supersport"] just yesterday for being a troublemaker. If "Supersport" signs in with three or four new pseuds (and you catch him via his computer address info) in the next couple of months, would you count those in your total of "people" banned, or count him and all his pseuds as a single ban?

Point being that one person's personality clash with a commenter isn't enough to get someone banned at TT, and one person's forgiveness doesn't get a banned commenter back into the fold once he's gone. This is completely reasonable. Whether it seems reasonable or not to posters here seeking new and better 'creationists' to play with is not a consideration.

Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Bad behavior" is pretty generic. "Personality clash" is also pretty vague.

Do you have any actual examples of "bad behavior" on the part of JAM?

As for the difficulties in recruiting "new and better "creationists" here, it is admittedly very difficult. But maybe that is because creationists these days are neither new nor better...
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 23 2007,17:45

Alan Fox wrote:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody's all bad.  I've even found myself in agreement with DaveScot on occasion.

*shudders*

Thought Provoker wrote:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is quite capable to defending herself.  MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.  If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did challenge Joy, directly.  We had a long exchange, during which she (like you) was unable to come up with any evidence for superconductivity in living organisms, much less humans.  Eventually she banished a comment of mine to the Memory Hole for < merely quoting her >.

TP:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life.

It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did you get that idea?  The Berkeley research you cite doesn't involve superconductivity at all.  Nor does the Orch OR hypothesis.  Are you confusing superposition with superconductivity?

Look, TP, I know that you really, really want Joy to be right, but your desire is clouding your judgment. There is simply no evidence that superconductivity occurs in the human body, nor that life depends on it.  Joy is simply wrong.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 23 2007,18:33

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to his original banning?

Addendum: It seems to have happened sometime after late October 2006.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 23 2007,19:30

From this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: FYI, Smokey [a.k.a. JAM] was originally banned (if I recall correctly) for being your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Krauze >: Smokey, I don't have time for your snearing attitude and your attempts to paint everything I write in the worst possible way. So consider yourself banned from this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a complete ban, only from the thread. And I can't find "your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice".
Posted by: silverspoon on Sep. 23 2007,21:44

Hi Joy. Maybe you’d be kind enough to expand on the topic you started here. < http://telicthoughts.com/tmi-29-years-later-lies-and-damned-lies/ >

I’m especially interested in several of your comments; like this one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The steam being released from TMI-2's cooling tower in the hours, days and weeks following the accident was contaminated with primary coolant water and the lode of radioactive material released from failed fuel and melting core, to the tune of millions of curies of everything from noble gases to heavy metals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The natural draft cooling towers at TMI, and elsewhere including fossil plants, consist of condensate water. Condensate water is several systems removed from primary coolant water. For the condensate system to become contaminated first there would need to be tube ruptures in the generators, then tube ruptures in the condenser. Neither was documented at TMI. Even if TMI had experienced a steam generator tube rupture the primary water wouldn’t have entered the condensate system. What I see you doing here is perpetrating the misconception that the TV and print media fostered at that time, and since. Almost every time there’s a nuclear incident they show a cooling tower. If you really are an ex HP tech then you know better.

And this from you:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've seen a full-grown male human being get sucked through a 12-inch hatch that blew once in the airlock into containment, breaking every bone in his body and hurling him more than 50 feet through the air on the other side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The emergency escape hatch at Surry is 18” in diameter. Please stop an think about this. An escape opening nowhere near large enough for someone to egress containment if the main door fails? Preposterous! I’ll take you saying you’ve seen this happen to mean that you were onsite, but did not personally witness the event. For that to happen you’d have to be looking through the outer hatches sight glass. That’s highly unlikely for someone who issued and read dosimetery. George came out of that accident with five or six broken bones, and a number of internal injuries. He’s doing well, and should retire within a few years. The next time I talk with him I’ll let him know he needs to check out all those other bones that were broken. Maybe he can sue the radiologists for malpractice.

And this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stillbirths rose 280% that year. Deformities of human and animal babies that were born were horrific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The incidents of miscarriages and stillbirths after the TMI accident was studied. It didn’t show what you have said. What it did show is a very slight increase of about 1% after the meltdown. The surrounding area had a spike in miscarriages a few months prior to the accident, up to very shortly after. I’m can’t remember what this was attributed to, but it certainly wasn’t the accident. It may very well have been a 280 % increase, but most came before the accident that year.  

All in all, your exaggerations, and lack of knowledge of basic nuclear plant systems leaves me somewhat skeptical of your honesty and sanity.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,21:45

Hi creeky belly,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am going to guess what you mean by "way too long".  Max Tegmark suggested the brain so wet, warm and noisy that it would force an almost immediate decoherence.

Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.

< Here > is a paper from Hameroff discussing the timing of consciousness.  It includes discussions on Libet, cutaneous rabbit and the “color phi” phenomenon.  These scientific observations support the idea that consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds.  Hameroff describes how and why the quantum effects in neural microtubules organized in dendritic structures for processing could and would account for these observations.

You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?
Posted by: Art on Sep. 23 2007,22:12

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 23 2007,21:44)
....All in all, your exaggerations, and lack of knowledge of basic nuclear plant systems leaves me somewhat skeptical of your honesty and sanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, now.  Long-time ARN and TT participants understand that joy's ramblings are pretty far detached from reality.  But there's no reason to question her honesty - she really believes the stories she tells.

joy's, um, creative fiction gives TT much of its distinctive flavor.  Who's to argue with the wishes of the TT crew, and the face they choose to put forth to the world?  Read and enjoy, and remember who is doing the writing.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 23 2007,22:18

Hi TT


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize that *time itself is not quantifyable and may not exist in fact. That is to say time as a physical element and that your statement is as meaningless as the Behe pseudo quantity 'irreducable complexity'?

(Edit for clarity)
*The present moment as a boundary point between future and past moving through linear unitless history as perceived by conciousness.

Are you sure you are not talking about history or perish the thought ....the future?

It seems to me you are conflating an emotional concept i.e. how you feel about time with your personal perception of time.

You might as well say consciousness transcends digestion, which of course is a necessity, do I need to expand on that?

Who was it that said "I think therefore I tick" ?

Say that with an Irish accent TT.

Hitching your metaphysical wagon to Pennock .....*yawn* ....he's almost as prolix as Dembski just better at dodging raindrops ....for my taste anyway.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,22:19

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,18:33)
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to his original banning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would think that if I had been banned for bad behavior, the simplest way to demonstrate it would be to point the reader to my comment(s) that represented this behavior.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,23:16

Hi K.E.

Thanks for your comment.  You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do realize that *time itself is not quantifyable and may not exist in fact. That is to say time as a physical element and that your statement is as meaningless as the Behe pseudo quantity 'irreducable complexity'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I understand time to be just another dimension like the three spatial ones.  This is the lesson from General Relativity.  Each point in Minkowskian Geometry (Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers) consists of four complex coordinates.

Things get interesting in Minkowskian Geometry.  For example, the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line.  This is what happens in the Twins Paradox, it becomes a geometry problem.  The space traveling twin takes a shortcut.

All of this might be just an interesting mathematical exercise except for the scientific verification.  Flying planes East and West around the Earth shows General Relativity (i.e. Minkowskian Geometry) is reality.  Special Relativity was incomplete.  The universe has an inertial frame of reference with time just being one of the four dimensions.

The EPR paradox (which has become a given quantum property) demonstrates interconnected effects over space/time.  When merged with General Relativity, the effects cross both space and time.

If time is a “qseudo quantity” then so is length.  You may not want to know my opinion on the alleged existence of “particles”.

Bringing all the sciences to bear to the fundamental question of consciousness suggest explanations that we otherwise wouldn’t consider.  For example, interconnected effects across time and space.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 23 2007,23:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... For example, interconnected effects across time and space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course...I was wondering when you were going to get to that, you saved me a lot of time.

Now all you have to do ..... is produce the evidence.

...oh wait ,you aren't suggesting a cosmic quantum pantograph wrote the good book ....are you?

No? Those ancient scribes were dreaming....right?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,00:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2007,01:07

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 24 2007,00:28)
And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< HOMO >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 24 2007,06:20

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,22:19)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,18:33)
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to his original banning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would think that if I had been banned for bad behavior, the simplest way to demonstrate it would be to point the reader to my comment(s) that represented this behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would think.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,07:22

Hi K.E,

You asked...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...oh wait ,you aren't suggesting a cosmic quantum pantograph wrote the good book ....are you?

No? Those ancient scribes were dreaming....right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did I fail to mention that most people would consider me an Atheist in the same way Dawkins is an Atheist.  Technically I am agnostic towards God, fairies and orbiting tea pots.  These things might exist but I doubt there is empirical evidence any of them.

Where Dawkins and I are different is that I embrace Gould's NOMA.  I consider philosophical questions distinct and separate from scientific ones.  Philosophy is about searching for Truth (capital "T").  Science is about determining useful knowledge.

I believe the Oracle of Delphi was both accurate and prophetic with the proclamation that no one is wiser than Socrates.

I don't know the Truth, do you?

While the search for Truth is important, I generally find it more enjoyable, and fruitful, to discuss science.  At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting...

Let's do Science!   :D

See my response to creeky belly for that.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,07:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting...

Let's do Science!  

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



Well ....what a suggestion! Does that method at that place seem slightly oxymoronic to you?

As far as teh TRVTH© is concerned .....I always reach for my dictionary.

< http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/ >

TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.

As I get older I become more suspcious of language and its uses.


Anyway good luck.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 24 2007,08:00

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway....
She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Joy is exceptionally paranoid > and self-important, and I agree with JAM - not very knowledgible in biology.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 24 2007,08:13

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah...  I wonder - how many new people post at TT?

I've not wasted my time there in some time, but when last I visited, I recall seeing the same few names starting threads and making comments.

Must be all those folks that are signing on to ID are doig it elsewhere.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,11:03

Hi creeky belly,
You wrote...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you heard of < Bucky Balls >?  These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms.  They demonstrate EPR-like effects.  The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls?  Penrose offers it is due to their mass.

By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994.  While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd".  I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects.

The < Schrödinger's cat > paradox refuses to go away by itself.   Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it.

Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror.  The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it).  However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years.  I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons.  Do you know of any?  I will look for them.

Penrose argues against Strong AI.  That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm.  And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms).  Here is < Planet Math's > analysis of it.  Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,11:04

Quote (Art @ Sep. 23 2007,22:12)
But there's no reason to question her honesty - she really believes the stories she tells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Art,

1) The hypothesis that she really believes that I was banned for "bad behavior" predicts that she will point to evidence of the behavior that she judged to be bad. We may not agree with her conclusion, but she shouldn't be reticent.

2) The hypothesis that she doesn't really believe that I was banned for "bad behavior" predicts that she won't point to any evidence, and continue to make vague accusations.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,11:13

Hi JAM,

I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours.

Joy and MikeGene aren't any more capable of finding the comment(s) that caused the problem than you are.

You indicated that you were banned three times.  MikeGene and Joy have offered explaination as to why they automatically enforced the ban on your two aliases.

If you want to continue to try and make a case, then it is up to you to make it.  I already asked you once to provide a link to the first instance so I could judge for myself.  You have yet to do that.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

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



Why limit your 'Ergo' just to one mannic mathematicians meanderings. I suggest you top it off with String Theory.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,11:18

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,11:13)
Hi JAM,

I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

I think not. If JAM doesn't think that he misbehaved, how can he find the evidence that others feel is proof of this misbehavior?

It makes a lot more sense for the accusers to provide the evidence, since they are the ones who judged JAM to be unworthy of posting at their blog. They made the charge; they need to back it up with proof. And, in my view, the longer they go on giving excuses for not doing that, the weaker their case gets.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,12:15

Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
Posted by: mitschlag on Sep. 24 2007,12:43

Wouldn't the simplest and fairest thing be to reinstate JAM?  Then, if he "misbehaves" again, ban him again.

It's easy.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,12:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you heard of Bucky Balls?  These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms.  They demonstrate EPR-like effects.  The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls?  Penrose offers it is due to their mass.

By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994.  While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd".  I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects.

The Schrödinger's cat paradox refuses to go away by itself.   Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it.

Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror.  The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.
I'm not here to debate with you the primary tenets of quantum mechanics; I know things like Schroedinger's cat are physical implications for the wave-like behavior of light and particles. (An aside: "Dead" is not a quantum state, it's a macroscopic description of the animal, what we're really asking is: which detector fired? That requires collapsing the wave function in order to fire the gun, release the poison, whatever.) What I called "absurd" was ignoring the effects of the EM potentials and interactions, when they are much more dominant than gravity. You can't just handwave it away and say it will be fine, especially when the quantum computer is immersed in a electric dipole fluid along with one of the strongest ferromagnetic substances. That's absurd. All of this makes it less feasible that our brain can properly transport quantum information.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it).  However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years.  I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons.  Do you know of any?  I will look for them.

Penrose argues against Strong AI.  That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm.  And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms).  Here is Planet Math's analysis of it.  Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Photon states work differently than electrons, they're based on the polarization rather than the spin state. We typically refer to them as flying qubits, and in fact some basic quantum cryptography systems (random number generators, AEC transmission lines) have already been created (google Magiq). Unfortunately, as you know, lower energy photons (like the kinds that would be safe to transmit through the body) are absorbed and scattered easily by electrons. They wouldn't make very good transmitters in our bodies.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 24 2007,12:46

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, I'm not understanding this at all.

When someone receives a punishment, when does it become their burden to prove they don't deserve it? Thats not generally how things work, anywhere.

Well, anywhere you'd want to emulate, at least.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 24 2007,13:00

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think TP should be banned from ATBC. If he wants to know why he's been banned, just say "bad behavior" and let him prove that he didn't engage in any.

Note that I will personally define what constitutes bad behavior, perhaps next week, but I won't tell TP what my criteria are. ATBC will be presumed correct until TP proves otherwise.

Sounds fair, no?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,13:02

[Interesting perspective, TP. But I don't think that this is "shield bashing", as you describe it. This is a simple lack of evidence, rather than any attempt to frame anything. I'll try to be a little clearer.

JAM maintains that he got banned for posting comments that included arguing for cogent hypotheses and testing of those hypotheses. TT admins maintain that he got banned because of despicable behaviors. Unless arguing for testable hypotheses is despicable, one of those is wrong.

JAM could undoubtedly link to a message where he said what he says he said. That would be pointless. It would then become incumbent on the TT admins to point out the messages that they were concerned about. Which is what I, and others, are asking them to do now. Why not bypass the intermediate step?

As for this statement    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The burden of proof rests with the accuser (you). As it does in this case. Show the evidence, and let the jury make up their minds.

You seem to be arguing for a situation where the persons making the accusation (TT admins) don't have to prove it. I won't even speculate why you would do that.  While we wait for the TT folks to step up to the plate (or not), maybe you can expound on that interesting behavior.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 24 2007,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, that's given me a great idea for a film, intended to get more girls interested in physics:

  Bend it Like deBroglie

No?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,13:14

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,11:13)
Hi JAM,

I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy and MikeGene aren't any more capable of finding the comment(s) that caused the problem than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You indicated that you were banned three times.  MikeGene and Joy have offered explaination as to why they automatically enforced the ban on your two aliases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the ban wasn't enforced automatically, and their justification is entirely dependent on there being valid reasons for the first banning.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to continue to try and make a case, then it is up to you to make it.  I already asked you once to provide a link to the first instance so I could judge for myself.  You have yet to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no idea when or what that first instance was, TP, except that it occurred before I was banned. Can we agree that TT is not nearly as tolerant as you have repeatedly claimed them to be?

And what about microtubules? Are you grasping the absurdity of the extent of Penrose's reductionism? How can consciousness be reduced to microtubules, if a fibroblast's "decision" about which way to turn resists such reduction?

Why microtubules and not the actin cytoskeleton?

Do you realize how ridiculous a mention of "cytoskeletal microtubules" appears to anyone with the most rudimentary education in cell biology? Can you name an instance of non-cytoskeletal microtubules?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 24 2007,13:32

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 24 2007,12:44)
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proportional, or inversely proportional? (And perhaps to mass rather than size?)

Henry
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,14:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Proportional, or inversely proportional? (And perhaps to mass rather than size?)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, I should have clarified. I said proportional when I meant comparable, and by size I meant volume. Essentially a 1000 kg car (average dimensions of 2m on a side) at 10 m/s has a wavelength of about 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 nm radius) moving at the same velocity has a wavelength of about 600 nm. That's not to say you can't see quantum effects through macroscopic objects (take NMR and spin-spin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,14:16

Hi JAM,

I will deal with the politics first and then with the science in another comment.

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no idea when or what that first instance was, TP, except that it occurred before I was banned. Can we agree that TT is not nearly as tolerant as you have repeatedly claimed them to be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I have loudly questioned MikeGene about whether or not Telic Thoughts lives up to its About Us declaration multiple times.  I have even pointed out the biased treatment of the Smokey verses Bradford discussions.  I felt you two were opposite sides of the same coin.

MikeGene estimates Telic Thoughts has banned a total of 10 people (7 ID critics and 3 ID supporters) in the 2.5 years of its existence.  You (with your three aliases) were apparently one of them.

Telic Thoughts is a pro-ID blog.  In case it has escaped everyone's notice, I seem to be the only one who seems to care whether or not people from After the Bar Closes choose to participate in discussions at Telic Thoughts.

Jam, it is obvious that you have a biased opinion of Telic Thoughts.  Based on your actions here, I would have to agree it would not be in Telic Thoughts best interest to reinstate your privileges.

If you actually wanted to come back, you missed an opportunity.  It would have been relatively easy to convince me that you were unfairly treated if you tried.  Had you done that, I would have tried to make the case that Telic Thoughts could use more balanced discussions. Besides, I liked "Smokey".  I might have had a chance, but now, with the way you chose to approach this, I don't see how it would be remotely possible.

As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue.  After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable.  Meanwhile, Telic Thoughts will be smug in their presumption that ID critics are arrogant and unreasonable.

Everyone can continue to be comfortable with their stereotypes reconfirmed.

Oh well, I tried.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,14:20

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,14:16)
As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue.  After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable.  Meanwhile, Telic Thoughts will be smug in their presumption that ID critics are arrogant and unreasonable.

Everyone can continue to be comfortable with their stereotypes confirmed.

Oh well, I tried.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you act arrogant ("I don't need to back up that accusation!"), and then get deemed arrogant, whose fault is it, anyway?

And actually, we weren't asking you to try. Speaking for myself only, I am pretty sure that I was asking the TT admins to back up an assertion. I don't think you are arrogant, but I gotta admit I wonder why you would stick up for some folks who do seem to be...
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,14:31

Hi Albatrossity2,

You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you act arrogant ("I don't need to back up that accusation!"), and then get deemed arrogant, whose fault is it, anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is a double-edged sword.  Jam is accusing TT of being intolerant without backing up his accusation.  You are DEMANDING an explanation.

Which side is arrogant?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, we weren't asking you to try. Speaking for myself only, I am pretty sure that I was asking the TT admins to back up an assertion. I don't think you are arrogant, but I gotta admit I wonder why you would stick up for some folks who do seem to be...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most people consider me arrogant (so do I).

To me, this isn't about taking sides.  It is about provoking thought.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,15:15

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,14:16)
Hi JAM,

I will deal with the politics first and then with the science in another comment.

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no idea when or what that first instance was, TP, except that it occurred before I was banned. Can we agree that TT is not nearly as tolerant as you have repeatedly claimed them to be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I have loudly questioned MikeGene about whether or not Telic Thoughts lives up to its About Us declaration multiple times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but elsewhere, you have touted TT as tolerant.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have even pointed out the biased treatment of the Smokey verses Bradford discussions.  I felt you two were opposite sides of the same coin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of coin?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jam, it is obvious that you have a biased opinion of Telic Thoughts.  Based on your actions here, I would have to agree it would not be in Telic Thoughts best interest to reinstate your privileges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what? That seems obvious, since they seem to be far more interested in shield-bashing than in discussing science.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you actually wanted to come back, you missed an opportunity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think I wanted to come back?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would have been relatively easy to convince me that you were unfairly treated if you tried.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think that I was trying to convince you?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had you done that, I would have tried to make the case that Telic Thoughts could use more balanced discussions. Besides, I liked "Smokey".  I might have had a chance, but now, with the way you chose to approach this, I don't see how it would be remotely possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you would have had a chance.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue.  After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a presumption.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh well, I tried.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not willing to be as obsequious as you are to the TT crowd. Let's do science!

Or do you have too much invested in this microtubule hypothesis to discuss it with someone who knows something about the neuronal cytoskeleton?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,16:05

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,13:15)
I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hopefully I wasn't rude to you, and that was just a hypothetical.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,16:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a double-edged sword.  Jam is accusing TT of being intolerant without backing up his accusation.  You are DEMANDING an explanation.

Which side is arrogant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care if I get an explanation or not, so I am pretty sure that my DEMAND is something that exists only in your mind.

In my world discussions are enhanced, and thoughts are even provoked, by providing evidence. This happens faster if evidence is provided without DEMANDS, but it can still happen if someone (like me, or k.e, or a number of others on this board) asks for it (politely, at first). If it is available, then it is helpful for the rest of us to see it, and then make whatever conclusions that seem to be warranted by the evidence.

So let's go back to my previous message, with the hypothetical scenario played out as you want it to be.

1) JAM provides a link to a post which looks reasonable.

2) The TT admins, if they want the evidence to speak for itself, would then provide a link to the post(s) which they found so offensive.

3) Evidence in hand, the jaded and biased and horribly arrogant crowd at AtBC can conclude whatever they can conclude from the evidence.

As I said before, why not skip the first step, since it is obvious to all (except perhaps you) that we must proceed to step 2 regardless of what happens in step one? But if the TT admins deem this to be arrogance, or an unjustified waste of their time, we are reduced to making a conclusion without all the evidence. I don't like to do that.

Do you?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,16:13

Burden of proof might not be a valid concept here. It makes sense in a courtroom where one side has to win. Having the burden of proof means the other side is the default winner. But does one side have to win in an argument about whether a banning was justified? I think visitors to a site can distinguish a site with 'ruthless' moderation from a site with laissez-faire moderation without making one side the default winner.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,16:34

Hi SteveStory,

My apologies.  I had intended on making it clear that it was a false hypothetical.

In fact, I found my welcome to After the Bar Close to be very warm (Kristine offered me "Shimmies").

As penance, I took the time to find my first post here (it was the career survey).  That turned out to be ironic, because as it happens I wasn't too happy at the time with Telic Thoughts. Here is what I wrote...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excuse me while I take some time to mope in my beer.
I just said goodbye to Telic Thoughts after about 6 months of posting there.

BTW, I have a BS Electrical Engineering with an MBA.  I put myself down for BS Science.

Don't get me wrong, as ID Proponents go, the TT bunch are pretty intelligent and most want to be open minded.  You see, I like to think I am pretty good at getting to the heart of issues and pointing them out (my engineering training).  I think I did a pretty good job.  I bent over backwards to put it in terms they could embrace by accepting all base ID assumptions (even Dembski's "math").  To no avail.  If it didn't support Theism it wasn't a "science" they could find acceptable.

I know better than argue with anyone about their faith, but I thought that maybe with a little open-mindedness and a firm declaration it's about science and not religion, that maybe, just maybe I could make a dent.

Oh well, pass me another beer, will ya?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The interesting part was the reply by someone named SteveStory...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Telic Thoughts is a unique ID blog. Unlike all the others (UD, JoeG, FtK,...) they aren't scared to death of informed commenters. They don't ban people for being knowledgeable.

As far as I know. Which is really based on very little info. I've been to TT only a handful of times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

I decided to give Telic Thoughts another chance.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,17:04

I based that on very little information. I posted about 10 times and all they did was move some of my posts to the 'memory hole'. That's a downright reasonable reaction. A normal ID blog would have disallowed 9 out of 10 comments and then banned me.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,18:57

Hi K.E.,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why limit your 'Ergo' just to one mannic mathematicians meanderings. I suggest you top it off with String Theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am coming to the conclusion that the String Theory is the result of the last desparate holdout in a belief that matter is made up of something solid.

I happen to think the Universe is one giant wavefunction existing in Minkowskian space/time Geometry.  Something like a < Mandelbrot Set >.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,20:05

Hi creeky belly,

Thank you for your reasoned responses.

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um....

E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work.

"The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." < link >

Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size.

deBroglie's equations are...
p = hk
E = hw

When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not here to debate with you the primary tenets of quantum mechanics;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic.  You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness".  For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself.  Penrose quit waiting.  He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all.  The final piece was consciousness.

Are you familiar with the story behind < Penrose Tilings >?

It started out as a mathematical curiosity.  At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern.  This is known as periodic tiling.  However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed.  One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible.  The race was on to find examples.  The first example had 20426 tile shapes.  To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”).

This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things.  Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered.  You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic).  An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings.

The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I called "absurd" was ignoring the effects of the EM potentials and interactions, when they are much more dominant than gravity. You can't just handwave it away and say it will be fine, especially when the quantum computer is immersed in a electric dipole fluid along with one of the strongest ferromagnetic substances. That's absurd. All of this makes it less feasible that our brain can properly transport quantum information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how.  He isn't a biologist.  But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics.  The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality.

Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia).
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,20:23

Hi Jam,

You asked...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you realize how ridiculous a mention of "cytoskeletal microtubules" appears to anyone with the most rudimentary education in cell biology? Can you name an instance of non-cytoskeletal microtubules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here > is one of many hits I found using the term "cytoskeletal microtubules" in a google search.

It was from The Journal of Cell Biology where they were distinguishing cytoskeletal microtubules from flagellar microtubules.

This is one of those situations where being quiet would have been the smarter choice.  I had presumed that "Smokey" wasn't just arguing for argument sake.  Now I am not so sure.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,21:05

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,20:23)
Hi Jam,

You asked...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you realize how ridiculous a mention of "cytoskeletal microtubules" appears to anyone with the most rudimentary education in cell biology? Can you name an instance of non-cytoskeletal microtubules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here > is one of many hits I found using the term "cytoskeletal microtubules" in a google search.

It was from The Journal of Cell Biology where they were distinguishing cytoskeletal microtubules from flagellar microtubules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In that context it is a meaningful distinction. However, neurons lack flagella, cilia, and mitotic spindles (the last of which is still the cytoskeleton IMO).

Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.

Again, changes in the actin cytoskeleton have been implicated in neuronal plasticity to a far greater degree than the microtubule cytoskeleton (including the transport of mRNAs encoding beta-actin and actin-binding proteins), yet Penrose ignores it. It seems to me as though he heard about MTs first and can't be bothered with anything more holistic, even though emergent properties involving both are involved in a fibroblast moving 5 microns on a plastic dish.

If that can't be reduced, how sensible is it to believe that consciousness can be reduced so much further?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,21:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi creeky belly,

Thank you for your reasoned responses.

You wrote...
Quote
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.

um....

E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work.

"The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." link

Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size.

deBroglie's equations are...
p = hk
E = hw

When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if you read my clarification you'd understand what I meant by "size":
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, I should have clarified. I said proportional when I meant comparable, and by size I meant volume. Essentially a 1000 kg car (average dimensions of 2m on a side) at 10 m/s has a wavelength of about 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 nm radius) moving at the same velocity has a wavelength of about 600 nm. That's not to say you can't see quantum effects through macroscopic objects (take NMR and spin-spin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another way to write deBroglie's equation is obviously:

lambda = h/p

Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic.  You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness".  For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself.  Penrose quit waiting.  He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all.  The final piece was consciousness.

Are you familiar with the story behind Penrose Tilings?

It started out as a mathematical curiosity.  At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern.  This is known as periodic tiling.  However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed.  One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible.  The race was on to find examples.  The first example had 20426 tile shapes.  To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”).

This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things.  Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered.  You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic).  An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings.

The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which does nothing to address the point that I raised, namely that there's no way to express a macroscopic object in terms of a pure quantum state (instead of a mixed state). You seem (along with Penrose) to think that we can handwave our way up from QM with electrons to QM with mols of atoms. < Bulk QC with large magnets > This is realistically the only way to get even partial macroscopic entanglement: Large precision magnets, low temps, and photons. From the paper: "99.99999999% of the time a generously sized room-temperature sample (10^22 spins) contains no 100-spin molecules in the ground state a1, a2 . . . an, or in any other single one of its 2^100 quantum states." IOW: large molecule + room temperature = no entanglement
       

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

Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how.  He isn't a biologist.  But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics.  The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality.

Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, maybe I missed it, but what was the last experimental quantum computation paper that Penrose wrote? Penrose can have all the theory he wants (gedanken out the wazoo); it's not discomfort if it doesn't describe reality, full stop. And this still doesn't explain why we can just handwave away EM interactions or temperature effects (how do you get a ground state in a 325K person?).
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,22:05

Hi Jam,

You ask...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here.  That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue.

You continue to make reference to Penrose.  Penrose is not the biologist, Dr. Hameroff is.  To avoid confusion, let me quote from < a paper > written by Dr. Hameroff and NOT the physicist Penrose...

III. The neural correlate of consciousness

a. Functional organization of the brain

Most brain activities are nonconscious; consciousness is a mere “tip of the iceberg” of neural functions. Many brain activities—e.g. brainstem-mediated autonomic functions—never enter consciousness. While consciousness is erased during general anesthesia, nonconscious brain EEG and evoked potentials continue, although reduced.[xiv]

...

Membrane-based neuronal input-output activities involve changes in synaptic plasticity, ion conductance, neurotransmitter vesicle transport/secretion and gap junction regulation—all controlled by the intra-neuronal networks of filamentous protein polymers known as the cytoskeleton. If simple input-output activities fully described neural function, then fine-grained details might not matter. But simple input-output activities—in which neurons function as switches—are only a guess, and most likely a poor imitation of the neuron’s actual activities and capabilities.

To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly. As single cells with no synaptic connections, how do they do it? Pondering the seemingly intelligent activities of such single cell organisms, famed neuroscientist C.S. Sherrington (1957) conjectured: “of nerve there is no trace, but the cytoskeleton might serve”. If the cytoskeleton is the nervous system of protozoa, what might it do for neurons?

IV. The neuronal cytoskeleton

a. Microtubules and networks inside neurons

Shape, structure, growth and function of neurons are determined by their cytoskeleton, internal scaffoldings of filamentous protein polymers which include microtubules, actin and intermediate filaments. Rigid microtubules (MTs) interconnected by MT-associated proteins (MAPs) and immersed in actin form a self-supporting, dynamic tensegrity network which shapes all eukaryotic cells including highly asymmetrical neurons. The cytoskeleton also includes MT-based organelles called centrioles which organize mitosis, membrane-bound MT-based cilia, and proteins which link MTs with membranes. Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).

Actin is the main component of dendritic spines and also exists throughout the rest of the neuronal interior in various forms depending on actin-binding proteins, calcium etc. When actin polymerizes into a dense meshwork, the cell interior converts from an aqueous solution (sol state) to a quasi-solid, gelatinous (gel) state. In the gel state, actin, MTs and other cytoskeletal structures form a negatively-charged matrix on which polar cell water molecules are bound and ordered (Pollack 2001). Glutamate binding to NMDA and AMPA receptors triggers gel states in actin spines (Fischer et al 2000).

Neuronal MTs self-assemble, and with cooperation of actin enable growth of axons and dendrites. Motor proteins transport materials along MTs to maintain and regulate synapses. The direction and guidance of motor proteins and synaptic components (e.g. from cell body through branching dendrites) depends on conformational states of MT subunits (Krebs et al 2004). Thus MTs are not merely passive tracks but appear to actively guide transport. Among neuronal cytoskeletal components, MTs are the most stable and appear best suited for information processing Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.

MTs are cylindrical polymers 25 nanometers (nm = 10-9 meter) in diameter, comprised of 13 longitudinal protofilaments which are each chains of the protein tubulin (Figure 8). Each tubulin is a peanut-shaped dimer (8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm) which consists of two slightly different monomers known as alpha and beta tubulin, (each 4 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm, weighing 55,000 daltons). Tubulin subunits within MTs are arranged in a hexagonal lattice which is slightly twisted, resulting in differing neighbor relationships among each subunit and its six nearest neighbors (Figure 9). Thus pathways along contiguous tubulins form helical pathways which repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows (the Fibonacci series). Alpha tubulin monomers are more negatively charged than beta monomers, so each tubulin (and each MT as a whole) is a ferroelectric dipole with positive (beta monomer) and negative (alpha monomer) ends.[xxiii]

In non-neuronal cells and in neuronal axons, MTs are continuous and aligned radially like spokes of a wheel emanating from the cell center. MT negative (alpha) ends originate in the central cell hub (near the centrioles, or MT-organizing-center adjacent to the cell nucleus) and their positive (beta) ends extend outward to the cell perimeter. This is the case in axons, where the negative ends of continuous MTs originate in the axon hillock, and positive ends reach the pre-synaptic region.

However dendritic cytoskeleton is unique. Unlike axons and any other cells, MTs in dendrites are short, interrupted and mixed polarity. They form networks interconnected by MAPs (especially dendrite-specific MAP2) of roughly equal mixtures of polarity. There is no obvious reason why this is so—from a structural standpoint uninterrupted MTs would be preferable, as in axons. Networks of mixed polarity MTs connected may be optimal for information processing.  

Intra-dendritic MT-MAP networks are coupled to dendritic synaptic membrane and receptors (including dendritic spines) by mechanisms including calcium and sodium flux, actin and metabotropic inputs including second messenger signaling e.g. dephosphorylation of MAP2 (Halpain and Greengard 1990). Alterations in dendritic MT-MAP networks are correlated with locations, densities and sensitivities of receptors (e.g. Woolf et al 1999). Synaptic plasticity, learning and memory depend on dendritic MT-MAP networks.

Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists. Vassilev et al (1985) reported that tubulin chains transmit signals between membranes, and Maniotis et al (1997a, 1997b) demonstrated that MTs convey information from membrane to nucleus. But MTs could be more than wires. The MT lattice is well designed to represent and process information, with the states of individual tubulins playing the role of bits in computers. Conformational states of proteins in general (e.g. ion channels opening/closing, receptor binding of neurotransmitter etc.) are the currency of real-time activities in living cells. Numerous factors influence a protein’s conformation at any one time, so individual protein conformation may be considered the essential input-output function in biology.


< Here is a diagram and video > showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing.

< Here is a video > that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components.

They one the DNA was just for structural support.  After all, how could something made up of only four bases be important?
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,22:43

Hi creeky belly,
You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another way to write deBroglie's equation is obviously:

lambda = h/p

Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you read the link I provided?

p = momentum = mass * velocity

"size" neither volume nor the cube-root of volume has anything to do with momentum.

From the career survey results, I would have thought a majority of the people in this forum would be explaining this obvious physics property to you.

Was I too polite?

YOU SCREWED UP!  LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED.

Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"?

"m" stands for MASS!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which does nothing to address the point that I raised...IOW: large molecule + room temperature = no entanglement
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you see temperature in deBroglie's equations too?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, maybe I missed it, but what was the last experimental quantum computation paper that Penrose wrote? Penrose can have all the theory he wants (gedanken out the wazoo); it's not discomfort if it doesn't describe reality, full stop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It does describe and explain the reality of quantum effects.

Did you happen to read Penrose's book The Road to Reality?  It came out in 2004.  It is 1100 pages of step by step explaination of his detailed view of reality.

Penrose is 65 years old.  He has been knighted.  He knows he will be proven correct.  This book should dissuade those tempted to suggest he got lucky again.  After all, Penrose was right about Black Holes and aperiodic tilings.  Why should he be correct in suggesting the obvious implications of deBroglie's equations are correct?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you get a ground state in a 325K person?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons.
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 24 2007,22:51

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
[quote=Thought Provoker,Sep. 22 2007,23:34]Hi Jam,

You wrote...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might also find her political leanings surprising.  (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all. That doesn't mean that she's not insane. Her support of the lies of the animal-rights movement is not surprising, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lies... Hmmm... I smell a history???
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,23:13

Since my last post has been relegated to the Bathroom Wall for tone I'll just repost the calculations:

perhaps you should look at what I calculated:

For the car
lambda = 6.62 x 10e-34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s)
lambda = 1e-37 m = 1e-28nm
size of car: 2 m
lambda is much smaller than the size of the car, thus the quantum effects are NEGLIGIBLE

For the electron
lambda = 6.62 X10e-34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e-27 kg*10 m/s)
lambda = 60 nm
size of electron = 1e-4 nm
since lambda is larger than the size of the electron, it will exhibit quantum properties
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,23:21

Oh FFS
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blah blah .....Penrose is 65 years old.  He has been knighted........blah blah
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



......So have Mick Jagger and Bob Geldoff .......your actual point?

In fact TP WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

You seem to be trying to describe a reality that requires a puppet operator. You seem to be pleading for the cosmic pantograph.

Do you have a way of testing Penrose's idea using the scientific method?

You should know I posted a couple of times on TT and was banned for saying a fact was not an idea and that ID was just an idea and just as useless as the idea of god or any other idea for that matter.

Why would they ban such an obvious...idea?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,23:25

Here are some links to places where they also did the calculation: < here > and < here > and < here's some stuff about that pesky cube root of volume > < here > < here's a page from a textbook > < here >
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,23:34

Do you believe in UFO's TP?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,23:51

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:05)
Hi Jam,

You ask...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here.  That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What you quote only confirms the sloppy reductionism of both Hameroff and Penrose.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No quarrel there. You seem to have trouble understanding that presence and involvement don't justify reducing consciousness to MTs, just as knowing that MTs are involved in fibroblast motility doesn't justify a similar reduction.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take issue with "in particular."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Here is a diagram and video > showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, TP. MTs are involved and essential, but there's no evidence of orchestration. The movement is caused by motors.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Here is a video > that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Straw man, TP. I had hoped that you were more thoughtful than that. I'm not claiming that they are passive. I'm pointing out that there's no evidence to support the reductionist notion that it all (or even mostly) boils down to MTs.

TP, If I keep asking you this question:

If that [fibroblast motility] can't be reduced, how sensible is it to believe that consciousness can be reduced so much further?

...and you don't answer it, grossly misrepresenting my position instead, are you thinking about what I'm writing at all?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 25 2007,00:07

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:43)
Hi creeky belly,
YOU SCREWED UP!  LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED.

Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"?

"m" stands for MASS!

...A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You and Hameroff screwed up. The Dalton (always capitalized) is a unit of mass, not weight.
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 25 2007,00:23

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,23:51)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hameroff seems to do that rather a lot. Consider this claim:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A quick PubMed search suggests this is arguable at best:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behav Neurosci. 1994 Feb;108(1):94-9.

Is tube-escape learning by protozoa associative learning?

Hinkle DJ, Wood DC.

Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.

The ciliate protozoa, Stentor and Paramecium, have been reported to escape from the bottom end of narrow capillary tubes into a larger volume of medium with increasing rapidity over the course of trials. This change in behavior has been considered an apparent example of associative learning. This decrease in escape time is not due to a change in the protozoa's environment, their swimming speed, frequency of ciliary reversals, or the proportion of time spent forward or backward swimming. Instead, most of the decrease results from a decrease in the proportion of time spent in upward swimming. However, a similar decrease in upward swimming occurs when the task is altered to require escape from the upper end of the capillary tubes. Because the protozoa exhibit the same change in behavior regardless of the reinforcing stimulus, tube-escape learning is not associative learning.

PMID: 8192854
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skimming through some of the links on Hameroff's site, he seems to repeatedly oversimplify unsettled questions in ways that conveniently fit his preferred hypothesis. As one more example, he states that gaseous anesthetics work by binding to hydrophobic pockets in proteins, and argues that this supports his model of superposition of states in tubulin. Here again, a quick search suggests that this is just one possible model of how such anesthetics work.

None of this is actual evidence against Hameroff's claims, of course, but I'm always more suspicious of someone who's willing to employ such dubious arguments.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 25 2007,09:55

Hi All,

When SteveStory popped in at Telic Thoughts as "Steve" and started asking reasonable, yet probing questions, I was encouraged.  I think it is good to look at things from various points of view.

Once I realized who he was and that he had started a thread discussing Telic Thoughts here, I attempted to try and inform the discussion.

SteveStory indicated he was looking for something a little more substantial than the typical creationist fluff.

I suggest that I have offered such.

However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time).

I also have got to get some real work done in real life.

Meanwhile, I hope I have managed to provoke some thinking here.  And, as a bonus, I started another thread called The Magic of Intelligent Design.

It is a repost of something I had presented at Telic Thoughts.  It provoked some thinking there (both for and against).  Maybe it could do the same here.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 26 2007,16:52

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,09:55)
However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi TP,

< Over on TT > you claimed:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can defend the Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis, in detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then defend in detail, using actual data and citing the primary literature, their attribution of consciousness to microtubule properties instead of those of actin filaments.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Sep. 28 2007,13:50

< Secret Message for Paul Nelson >

Paul Nelson comments, "No, I'm debating Michael Ruse in southern California, about what would make us adopt the opposing position on ID vs. Darwinian evolution." and he < links to UD >. There he offers this quote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”
— Paul Valery, Analects
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YEC notions excepted, of course.  FFS, a YEC "debating" about what it would take to get him to accept Darwinian evolution?  I guess the following week, the KKK will give 5 good reasons for affirmative action and a representative for NOW will offer a scenario in which suffrage is a bad idea.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2007,17:38

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,11:50)
One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for < some good laughs >, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, < Telic Thoughts. > It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had a long-running argument with JoeG (Joe Gallien, I think his name is?) on Telic Thoughts a couple of years ago. He kept claiming there was no evidence for macroevolution, and that there was no proposed mechanism for macroevolution.

It got kind of repetitive after a while.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2007,13:22

Weird. MikeGene goes way off in the weeds.

< Antievolution in a “Post-Wedge” World? >
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 09 2007,20:59

They're talking about < Abbie >, a.k.a. < ERV >. (I already let her know.)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2007,21:09

Telic Thoughts guy says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, it's not really surprising that some SIVcpz Vpus have only one CK II site, and have a string of negatively charged amino acids in place of the second site. CK-II site phosphorylation also results in negative charge.

I found it interesting though, that virtually all HIV-1 sequences have both serines, even though they undergo so much variation during replication. The reason why may actually be that changing from a serine codon, to , say aspartate, requires at least two nucleotide substitutions, thus resulting in a rugged fitness landscape where a possible tranversion would result in a poor replicator. It's got to climb up a peak in order to mutate again to aspartate. So here we get a better understanding of Behe's thinking regarding "the edge of evolution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a strikingly vague comment. Can you clarify this with some numbers, mister Telic Thinker? Or just this kind of hand waving?
Posted by: ERV on Oct. 09 2007,21:39

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 09 2007,21:09)
That's a strikingly vague comment. Can you clarify this with some numbers, mister Telic Thinker? Or just this kind of hand waving?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, I totally dont get their point.

"Aspartic acid cant be phosphorylated, therefore Creationism is true.  Fitness landscapes."

What?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2007,21:43

yeah, pretty much. They're like voodoo priests, muttering some incantations and hoping the bad juju goes away.
Posted by: Frostman on Nov. 26 2007,21:37

This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman.

It all started when Bradford quoted a recent < NYT article > by Paul Davies which caused some discussion.                            
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
Davies's editorial ends on a note that anti-theists find most discordant.                                                          
Quote (Davies @ NYT)
But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

                                                       
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
However Davies wrote two important sentences preceding the above sentence:                                                        
Quote (Davies @ NYT)
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.

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

Davies was quoted out of context. What Davies says, in context, is most certainly something non-theists would support.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                                                     
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
What Davies is clearly inferring is that an element of faith underlies human endeavors and science is no exception. Anti-theists are notorious for their distortions of the meaning of faith and an insistence it must be blind. That is inconsistent with Davies' points. I've used the term anti-theist which you altered to non-theist. Their meaning differs.

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

                                                     
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
I changed anti-theist to non-theist because the former appears inflammatory. I try to cool the discussion whenever possible.

   The term anti-theist connotes an us-vs-them mentality; two opposing sides warring against each other. On the other hand, non-theist connotes a person who happens to disagree with theism.

   My apologies if you were being inflammatory on purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is where things get interesting.  Bradford deleted the above post.  The policy at Telic Thoughts is to move off-topic posts to a page called the "memory hole".  On-topic posts are not so moved, and outright deletion of posts is not done at all (with the exception of spam, etc).  In response he said,                                                        
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
Frostman, do not accuse and pretend an apology in the same sentence. As for what is inflammatory, I'll be the judge of that. If you think the blog entry is inflammatory you can always exit. I'll show you the door.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I inquired if he indeed deleted my post (as I did not know then).  After my asking a second time, he said yes.

Bradford then wrote a very angry post, which he soon deleted himself (instead of moving it to the memory hole per the policy, again).  It was interesting to see the outburst, and sadly only part of it survives in my response to it,                                                          
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
                                                             
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
If you're going to accuse me of quoting someone out of context (when I linked to the actual article) then have the integrity to respond to the actual wording I used.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true. It does not matter which term I use — they are equivalent insofar as agreeing with Davies or not.

As I said, "anti-theist" sets the stage for an us-verses-them mentality, which is to be avoided. By pointing out the problematic quoting, I did not wish to inadvertently take the side of "anti-theists". That is why the term is inflammatory — you are setting the stage for those who disagree to be on the "anti-theist" side. It's just modern-day tribalism.                                                        
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
You don't give a rat's behind about avoiding inflammatory language.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, a double entendre with irony. What are your reasons for believing that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not surprisingly, this post was soon deleted (not moved to the memory hole).  I begin to notice other posts being deleted.  There were two by someone protesting the deletion of my posts --- deleted.  There were a few by keiths (another member of TT) saying that he witnessed the deletion of the posts --- deleted.  Keiths wrote a post which quoted the deletion policy at Telic Thoughts --- deleted.  I quoted my first deleted post --- deleted.  I asked Bradford if his behavior was appropriate in light of the deletion policy --- deleted.

It should be noted that Guts, another member of Telic Thoughts, said the memory hole was not working soon after the deletion of my first post.  Guts also said that he fixed it, and his test posts at the memory hole presumably demonstrated this to him.  At first this appears to be the reason why posts were deleted rather than moved.  However, the rash of deletions occurred after Guts fixed it.

Furthermore, the deletions happened before and after Bradford cheekily said, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine. :grin:"  As it was obvious these posts were being deleted rather than moved, it was indeed an impudent comment.  There are two of my posts currently in the memory hole; I suspect they were moved there by Guts before Bradford was able to delete them, as Guts mentioned that he moved some posts.

At this point, Bradford's posts which reprimanded me were present, but my posts to which the reprimands refer were deleted.  This left a clear impression that I somehow flew off the handle, when in fact my posts were entirely appropriate, if only the reader could see them.

I made a couple posts calmly inquiring about this fit of deletions, about whether Bradford's behavior was appropriate --- deleted.  The last post I made was,                                    
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
It is unethical to make accusations while deleting (not moving to the memory hole) the posts upon which those accusations are made, and also deleting (again, not moving to the memory hole) responses to those accusations. Do you disagree?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That, of course, was promptly deleted.  Soon after I obtained a forbidden message from the Apache server at telicthoughts.com, meaning my IP address was banned.  I confirmed this by successfully being able to connect to telicthoughts.com from an anonymous proxy.

Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in < one thread >, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.

I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.  Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 26 2007,21:49

I think it was Bradford I told something like "It's clear that Mike Gene has at least some familiarity with science, and it's clear that you do not."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2007,22:07

which one of you guys is Bradford again?
Posted by: Frostman on Nov. 26 2007,22:31

Somehow I forgot to give the thread in which this all happened:

< http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 26 2007,23:13

Quote (Frostman @ Nov. 26 2007,21:37)
This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman.

...Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in < one thread >, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford is incredibly stupid, incredibly ignorant, and incredibly dishonest. The three qualities have a delightful synergy.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the norm at TT, not the exception.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's not a chance in hell of that happening.
Posted by: Frostman on Nov. 27 2007,01:23

I have not yet addressed one aspect of my recent banning.  No doubt a Telic Thoughts member will write to me and say, "Well, we told you to stop posting on that thread, but you continued.  You got yourself banned."  I would interpret that statement as: "We told you to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, but you kept making a fuss about it."

Allow me to run with this analogy.  The man behind the curtain is Bradford.  The reality of the situation is the appropriateness of my posts together with the inappropriateness of his behavior.  The apparatus controlled by the man behind the curtain is an illusion-making machine.  It works by deleting all posts which mention his dishonest conduct, while preserving his posts which admonish my posts.  Voila, the illusion is complete: my behavior appears questionable, and Bradford appears to rightly scold me for it.

Well, the illusion is not very good, because I clearly see the man behind the curtain.  I bring attention to this fact.  The man looks at me and says, "You best not say anything more," wagging his finger at me, "or I'll ban you."

At this point there is no turning back, at least for me.  The illusion is directed toward falsely discrediting me while at the same time concealing his dishonest behavior.  It is inconceivable that I would put my head down and walk away.  The story ends either with my banishment or with the public recognition that there is a man behind the curtain engaged in mischief.  

I hope that is clear.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 27 2007,07:34

Telic Thoughts seems to be going the same way as all the pro-ID blogs. (That's imploding, in case anyone wasn't sure!)
Take UD's list of ID friendly blogs:

ARN
(Fair moderation policy has resulted in most pro-ID posters being beaten into submission by some excellent anti-ID regulars. Almost moribund.)

Design Inference
(Just Dembski stuff, no comments, not a true blog)

ID in the UK
( Just one witless guy's blog with nothing posted for a couple of months)

ID the future ID Superblog
(DI propaganda, no comments, not a true blog)

ISCID
(Moribund, apart from one notable exception.)

Overwhelming Evidence
(Moribund, supposedly for young ID folks, but same, sad faces)

Post-Darwinist The Blog of Denyse O'Leary
(Heavily-moderated, Gobbledegook threads, very few comments, none meaningful)

Telic Thoughts
(Somewhat of a maverick, used to be the thinking man's UD, what happened to Bilbo?)

Young Cosmos Personal site of Salvador Cordova
(Amazingly, Sal is still posting, so ID is not dead yet.)
Posted by: Guts on Nov. 27 2007,17:16

I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone. Thats just the way life is, and it's true for any blog/website (I was banned from an anti-ID forum myself once).

With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,18:03

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What line, Nelson? Suggesting ID predictions that Mike Gene might test instead of writing books? Pointing out one of the many times that the feckless Bradford contradicts himself?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Riiiight. So why is there nothing in the thread at TT to indicate that?
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,18:26

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:19)
lol JAM, you're delusional, as always.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your avoidance of two simple questions makes me delusional?

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who claims that "Intelligent agents today build motors that look like the motors in bacteria."

They build nanometer-scale motors out of proteins? Who's done that?
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,18:41

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone. Thats just the way life is, and it's true for any blog/website (I was banned from an anti-ID forum myself once).

With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was a misunderstanding, why was Frostman banned, Nelson?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 27 2007,18:53

A few insults have been moved to the Bathroom Wall.
Posted by: Guts on Nov. 27 2007,18:54

Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,21:04

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54)
Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What point?
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 28 2007,01:36

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts,

Let me get this straight.  You acknowledge that deleting comments is against TT policy:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you admit to violating that policy -- and not just temporarily:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The memory hole wasn't working for a while. It's working now, I asked that comments be deleted and saved for manual insertion. I am deleting, however, all the whining as well as my own comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You also acknowledge that the misunderstanding was completely your fault.

So Frostman and I were banned because

1) you created a misunderstanding that was completely your fault;
2) you went on to violate TT's comment policy by deleting comments that you never placed in the Memory Hole;
3) neither you nor Bradford stepped in to defuse the situation by telling us that comments were only being deleted temporarily (which, as it turns out, wouldn't have been true anyway);
4) Frostman and I correctly protested the violation of TT's comment policy; and
5) you and/or Bradford banned both of us, knowing the entire time that the whole situation was a "misunderstanding".

Synopsis:  You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

Makes perfect sense to me.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 28 2007,05:02

You know, there used to be a word that described that sort of thing.

Facist lying bastard.

dang 3 words
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 28 2007,05:12

Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through < this thread > and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 28 2007,05:21

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54)
Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 28 2007,06:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 28 2007,11:21)
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54)
Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My advice: don't ask.

The answer might make you cry.

Louis
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 28 2007,10:10

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 28 2007,05:12)
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through < this thread > and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan,

Long as it is, that thread was started only because the < previous thread > took too long to load over Joy's dialup modem.  (Go on, just take a peek -- you know you want to.  :p)

I'll give you 45 minutes back, but I'm keeping 15 for the < Adelson illusion >.  Deal?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 29 2007,02:27

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2007,05:10)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 28 2007,05:12)
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through < this thread > and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan,

Long as it is, that thread was started only because the < previous thread > took too long to load over Joy's dialup modem.  (Go on, just take a peek -- you know you want to.  :p)

I'll give you 45 minutes back, but I'm keeping 15 for the < Adelson illusion >.  Deal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deal!
Posted by: Frostman on Dec. 02 2007,23:40

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007, 17:16)
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  The comments were deleted, against TT policy --- not "gave the impression that comments were just being deleted".  They were not saved.  They are not there now.  They are gone.                                                              
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007, 17:16)
I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why on earth would you direct these statements toward me?  By deleting comments permanently, you have shown that you do not truly respect and understand the purpose of the memory hole.  Not me.  You are the one who violated TT policy.  Not me.

In reference to the previous analogy, it turns out the man behind the curtain was Guts, not Bradford.  To Guts' credit, he wrote a contrite apology to me privately in email, acknowledging that he made a serious mistake.  His private apology was nothing like the equivocal one he gave here, however.

The obvious question I asked him was, Why didn't he make an apology on TT?  As a direct consequence of his mistakes, the TT members had a false impression of what happened.  My conduct was entirely rational, yet since my posts were deleted, there was no record of my defense.  Guts had already apologized to me privately for this.  Most TT members do not frequent this thread here on antievolution.org.  Why didn't Guts come clean to the readers of TT?

You won't believe what came next.  Guts agreed to make such an apology --- but only on the condition that I renounce an opinion which I expressed on the TT thread!  It sounds unbelievable, I know.  Not only is Guts unwilling to do the right thing, but he commits extortion on top of it.

Guts wanted me to disavow my position that the Davies quote was out of context (bold mine):        
Quote (Paul Davies @ NYT)
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After many tries, Guts was unable to understand that, in regard to atheism or "anti-theism", using only the last (non-bolded) sentence without the previous two is inappropriate.  Davies is no theist, as is well known, and as the first two sentences above suggest.  Quoting only the last sentence misrepresents Davies' position.

Guts did not agree.  Which is fine.  We are free to disagree, and we are free to debate the issue further if we so choose.  Or so I thought.

As it turns out, Bradford was incredibly offended by my suggestion that the quote was out of context.  Indeed, the first permanent deletion was done by Bradford (the post was not "saved" to be later inserted in the memory hole).  Incidentally, it should be noted that Bradford was the first one to violate the TT deletion policy, and that action is what precipitated these events.  Guts was backing up Bradford the whole way.  Guts was also expressing outrage at the very idea of an out of context quote.

The interesting part is that my opinion of the quote is irrelevant.  I repeatedly made clear that all I wanted was for Guts to do the right thing --- to explain the situation to the readers of TT, as he at least tried to do here.  But Guts kept dodging, instead wanting to talk about the Davies quote and how my opinion is unacceptable.  He would only admit his mistakes on TT if I renounced my position.

Guts then took the desperate position that it doesn't matter where he makes the apology.  The following is the final unanswered email I sent to Guts:

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman
Posted by: Joy on Dec. 03 2007,17:03

Frostman said...

"TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell them."

"Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation."


LOL!!! Oh, goodness, Frosty! Why in the world do you think anyone at TT should be as attached to your typing as you are? There is no "ethical obligation." TT is a privately owned blog that doesn't have to let you participate at all, and may make decisions about moderation without consulting you. It's not an EEOC employer of yours, and isn't the government either. Unless you're getting paid by the post and have to produce links to them in order to get paid, you've no reason to complain.*

* And if you're getting paid per-post, we want half. §;o)

I knew the Hole was out of order, because I had to delete a post of Mark's just the week before (along with my reply). In a perfectly topical post to the subject of the thread he had inserted an accusation of sock-puppetry against a couple of our other participants, a serious no-no (as well as not true based on our stats info). Because the Hole was out of order - something about the server switchover - I simply deleted it after informing him why, then deleted that too. It didn't occur to me to make a copy to manually insert from Guts' end, so I didn't. The post simply had to go.

Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone. He merely took up where he'd left off per the topic and there were no further issues and no hard feelings.

Get back to us when you grow up. Or not. No skin of our noses.
Posted by: JAM on Dec. 03 2007,18:05

Quote (Joy @ Dec. 03 2007,17:03)
...Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, a fake quote from the deluded Joy.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension of a seven-year-old, you would have noted that Frostman was stunned by the hypocrisy and dishonesty at TT. He made no claim of any "right."

What he doesn't realize is that your reflexive dishonesty is the norm, not the exception.
Posted by: slpage on Dec. 04 2007,08:02

Quote (JAM @ Dec. 03 2007,18:05)
Quote (Joy @ Dec. 03 2007,17:03)
...Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, a fake quote from the deluded Joy.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension of a seven-year-old, you would have noted that Frostman was stunned by the hypocrisy and dishonesty at TT. He made no claim of any "right."

What he doesn't realize is that your reflexive dishonesty is the norm, not the exception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Not to mention the paranoia... >
Posted by: Frostman on Jan. 06 2008,14:05

Just to wrap this up, I sent the following email to Mike Gene on 12/17/2007, to which there was no reply:

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my banishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community, however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >

My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told me.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not support such a free exchange.

Kind Regards,
Frostman
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,18:11

Keiths wrote:



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

You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

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



No, you and Frostman couldn't follow rules, so you and Frostman got banned.

Frostman wrote:



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

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my comments permanently, against TT policy.  

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



Actually the situation went more like this:

1. Frostman accused Bradford of (falsely) taking a quote of context.

2. After Bradford explained himself, Frostman continued harrassing Bradford.

3. The memory hole wasn't working, so I advised all TT authors to delete them and I will insert them into the memory manually.

4. Frostman increased harrassment after a TT author deleted a comment.

5. Keiths joined in the harrassment by restoring a comment from the memory hole.

6. Frostman and Keiths were banned.

The interesting thing about this is that I acknowledged that Frostman may have misunderstood the situation sincerely. So I offered him an opportunity to return. He said he didn't care whether or not he was banned. I'm glad he admitted that, as it shows that this is all just some martydom show. The bottom line is that, posting on TT isn't your right, it's a priviledge. Unless you want to help out with the costs ;)
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,18:13

Wesley wrote:



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

Eh?

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



What was so hard to understand?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,18:14

It's interesting how none of the insults spewed by the residents here get sent to the wall...
Posted by: rhmc on Jan. 06 2008,19:31

so the memory hole wasn't working?
and the other posts are gone?

curious, eh?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,19:51

Guts comes back to stumble over his shoelaces:  
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,18:11)

5. Keiths joined in the harrassment by restoring a comment from the memory hole.

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


Guts,

< As I told you at the time >, I didn't restore the comment; Frostman did.  And he didn't restore it from the Memory Hole.  The Memory Hole was broken, remember?

I wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. Frostman restored a deleted comment that was not in the Memory Hole, and I confirmed that I had seen it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the one thing that you just presented as a reason for banning me turns out to be false.  Good one, Guts.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

And by the way, you're still misspelling "martyrdom" as "martydom".
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,20:01

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 06 2008,19:31)
so the memory hole wasn't working?
and the other posts are gone?

curious, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

so the memory hole wasn't working?
and the other posts are gone?

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



There's nothing curious about it. The posts that are gone were just him either repeating himself or complaining. It's working now, and there are plenty of critics on TT that post freely.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,20:04

Keiths:


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

As I told you at the time, I didn't restore the comment; Frostman did.  And he didn't restore it from the Memory Hole.  The Memory Hole was broken, remember?

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



Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted. You can't even get basic facts right.

Keiths:


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

And by the way, you're still misspelling "martyrdom" as "martydom".

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



Yeah I keep leaving out the r. I'm not even sure why you're chiming in, in this situation, you look the worst, since I warned you about 5 times to get back on topic. It makes all your comments about the "martyrdom machine" rather hilarious.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,20:57

Perhaps you should have an scale from 1-5 for these things, with 4 categories, to see if someone should be banned.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,21:07

We're actually revamping the way these bannings go. Since there are many authors, and each of them have different levels of tolerance, I'm making a way for each author to police their threads individually. This will probably do away with the need for complete banishment.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,21:35

I was joking, based on this:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5356 >
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,21:49

huh? That joke would be funnier if it lampooned the methodology accurately.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,21:55

Marty Dom digs himself deeper:
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,20:04)
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then post it here.  I know for a fact that I did not fish any comments out of the Memory Hole.  You've already admitted that the Memory Hole was not working -- how could I have fished out a comment that wasn't there, even if I had wanted to?

The only way that I could have quoted a deleted comment is if you deleted it after I quoted it.  Did that even occur to you?

What's amusing about this is that you've convicted yourself again.  By saying that you're "looking right now" at my comment that you deleted, you've confirmed that you violated TT's policy against deleting comments without placing them in the Memory Hole.  As you put it earlier:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way to go, Marty.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?  Have you read Consilience? :p

(I'm still laughing about that one.  You were asked at least seven times if you had read Consilience, and you avoided the question each time, < starting here > through the end of the thread.)

To summarize:  You violated TT policy.  Frostman and I pointed it out.  You acknowledge it.  Yet we got banned for it.

Pathetic.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,21:56

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:49)
huh? That joke would be funnier if it lampooned the methodology accurately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'm sure its much more sciency than I understand. We can give you a thread here to make your case, if you like, but it sounds like telic thoughts has boilerplate creobot 'moderation', so I wont be going there.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:12

Keiths:


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

Then post it here.  I know for a fact that I did not fish any comments out of the Memory Hole.  You've already admitted that the Memory Hole was not working -- how could I have fished out a comment that wasn't there, even if I had wanted to?

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



Keiths, if the memory hole still wasn't working at that point (even though I said it was fixed at that point), then why are there comments by Frostman and Joy in the memory hole? ( see here < http://telicthoughts.com/57/#comment-157770) >

Obviously at that point, the memory hole was working, and several of Frostman's comments were sent there. You pathetically tried to fish them out.


Keiths:


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

The only way that I could have quoted a deleted comment is if you deleted it after I quoted it.  Did that even occur to you?

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



Except that I didn't delete it.

Keiths:


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

What's amusing about this is that you've convicted yourself again.  By saying that you're "looking right now" at my comment that you deleted, you've confirmed that you violated TT's policy against deleting comments without placing them in the Memory Hole.

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



Actually, I deleted a comment of yours because you tried to fish it out of the memory hole. This is a method used to deter anyone from doing just that. Others have been banned for doing similar things (fishing comments out of the memory hole). But anyway thats not even the reason why you were banned.
 As you put it earlier:

Keiths:


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

Way to go, Marty.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?  Have you read Consilience?

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



Yup, it's obvious though, that you never did. That was a funny one.

Keiths:


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

(I'm still laughing about that one.  You were asked at least seven times if you had read Consilience, and you avoided the question each time, starting here through the end of the thread.)

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



I didn't avoid the question, I showed, through refuting each and every one of your points, that I had read it, and you didn't. What does scienticism mean again?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:17



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

We can give you a thread here to make your case, if you like, but it sounds like telic thoughts has boilerplate creobot 'moderation', so I wont be going there.

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



What are you talking about? TT is crawling with critics. If getting rid of trolls like Keiths is "boilerplate creobot moderation" then so be it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,22:34

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,22:17)


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

We can give you a thread here to make your case, if you like, but it sounds like telic thoughts has boilerplate creobot 'moderation', so I wont be going there.

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



What are you talking about? TT is crawling with critics. If getting rid of trolls like Keiths is "boilerplate creobot moderation" then so be it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan fox has a neutral venue if you'd be more comfortable. My dealings with Keiths have been fine. I must be troll tolerant, or perhaps you're full of it. I can always wait for the film of the book to be on TBS, or perhaps nature will pick it up.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:40



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

I must be troll tolerant, or perhaps you're full of it.

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



Actualy I am very troll tolerant, I gave Keiths chance after chance to avoid getting banned. He decided to become a cog in his own "martyrdom machine" instead.

Look at him now, he can't even get his facts straight.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,22:44

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,22:40)


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

I must be troll tolerant, or perhaps you're full of it.

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



Actualy I am very troll tolerant, I gave Keiths chance after chance to avoid getting banned. He decided to become a cog in his own "martyrdom machine" instead.

Look at him now, he can't even get his facts straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I've just been reading this thread in its entirety. Doesn't bode well for telic thoughts. You can explain it here or go to Alan's neutral venue, or not, if you don't want to. But you have pretty standard creobot 'moderation' and it's a waste of any rational persons time to invest effort in dialogue that might not see the light of day.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:46

Yeah but of course you would say that.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:49

Who is Alan Fox, why do you want me to go there? Are you inviting me to debate something? I don't mind participating here, but none of the topics interest me at the moment. Maybe I will in the future. I just wanted to set the record straight, I'm done for now.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,22:49

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,22:46)
Yeah but of course you would say that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woo Hoo, go design detective!
A neutral venue has been offered. Is the thought of not being able to disappear posts or to be asked difficult questions that scary? is your position *that* ridiculous?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,22:50

Guts, you wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.

Why is that?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:54

Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.

Richard, I have no idea what you're talking about, I have discussed on other forums, and I would be more than happy to debate anywhere you'd like, even on non-neutral venues.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because it's a request, not a demand. A demand would be



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I told you to post it here.  You're avoiding my demand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Based on past experience, I'm sure the design detection at TT is a good as any other creobot site. How many designs have you guys found now? What about that bacterial flagella, eh? Is that designed? Start a thread here, and we'll chat. Or not.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:05

How about this, I'll do a scan of all your posts, or all of the threads that you've participated in, and if I feel inspired i'll start up a discussion there.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:09

You can participate in any thread you want, an amazing concept, I know. Tell me about your design detection. I want success stories. I'm still on board that ol' time evilution sinking ship... but being quite rat-like I'll be the first to leave if you make a compelling case.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,23:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:16

Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:16

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,23:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Keiths, are you denying that you quoted Frostman's post that was in the memory hole, you're ACTUALLY going to deny it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:17

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,23:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like Uncommon Descent. Is Krause thier Davetard?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:18

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,23:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt it. I'm a minion of Satan.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,23:18

So Guts, are you desperately trying to change the subject away from the comment that you're afraid to post?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:20

lol Keiths, you're not very good at this.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:20

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,23:18)
So Guts, are you desperately trying to change the subject away from the comment that you're afraid to post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


6

DaveScot

05/23/2006

1:02 am
Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,01:12

Hypothesis:

Once the book is published and the fleecing of the credulous begins, other views are less welcome.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 07 2008,01:18

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Dick, he believes that all the species evolved from pairs of a relative handful of kinds just a few thousand years ago.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,01:43

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 07 2008,01:18)
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Dick, he believes that all the species evolved from pairs of a relative handful of kinds just a few thousand years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh! Suprise!
Posted by: Frostman on Jan. 07 2008,03:35

Guts has not denied that he attempted to commit extortion by asking to me to a make false statement in exchange for lifting my ban at TT.

Guts still believes that holding an opinion that a particular quote is taken out of context is sufficient grounds for banning.

Guts has ratcheted up the rhetoric.  My rational arguments about why a particular quote by Paul Davies is taken out of context is now construed as "harassment".  Let Guts provide the exact post of mine which he claims may be so construed: he will find none.  He will find each and every post of mine at TT to be calmly and rationally presented.

Guts has still not made a public apology at TT commensurate with his public apology here (and his profuse private apology to me in email).

Guts has officially discarded what he said to me in email.  It is normally bad form to quote a private email, but by practicing historical revisionism Guts forces my hand.                                          
Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)
Bradford only deleted 1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since I used a temporary gmail account for this exchange, I am prepared to hand over the account to a neutral party who will verify that the above words are authentic.

As I have stated several times now, the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place.  At TT, there is no right to disagree.

That said, Guts may indeed see my point of view even though he asserts otherwise.  The gist of my argument was that the omission of the two sentences preceding the Davies quote in question produced an impression which was unfaithful to Davies' intended meaning.                                    
Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)
Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to say he took it out of context, Bradford was not talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the reaction from various atheists on the internet to the one sentence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you nailed it precisely, Guts.  Bradford was not talking about Davies' intended meaning.  That is exactly why the quote is taken out of context.  The number one rule in quoting is to be faithful to the intended meaning.  Thank you for clarifying.

Lest the conversation gets sidetracked on this, let me repeat again: the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place.  My position is a rational one which deserves a place in a forum which values a free exchange of ideas.

Blog owners have a right to censor content on their blog.  However, an ethical problem occurs when censors try to pretend they are not censoring.

TT does not support a free exchange of ideas.  And that is fine.  But let us not pretend otherwise, okay Guts?

Guts, I am not writing here because I want you to lift my ban.  In reference to your mistakes which you have admitted both here at AE and to me in email, I want you to come clean.  This is your ethical (though not legal) obligation.  I shall conclude by repeating what I have said to you before in this regard:

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,09:00

Oh dear. Is it Telic Tards or Tardic Thoughts?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,09:47

< http://telicthoughts.com/shermer-in-the-matrix-2/#more-1990 >

Oh dear.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 07 2008,09:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2008,10:47)
< http://telicthoughts.com/shermer-in-the-matrix-2/#more-1990 >

Oh dear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of hard to ignore the uh... underlying ... um... envy of sorts... that seems to be the general tone of that substanceless post.

Just sayin'.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 07 2008,10:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 07 2008,09:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2008,10:47)
< http://telicthoughts.com/shermer-in-the-matrix-2/#more-1990 >

Oh dear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of hard to ignore the uh... underlying ... um... envy of sorts... that seems to be the general tone of that substanceless post.

Just sayin'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, reminded me of a 5year old just saying "it just is" over and over.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 07 2008,15:15

*delurks*

Not to make Rich a fibber, I closed comments at my blog because it was starting to accumulate spam. but if Guts feels he can dig himself out of his hole better at Languedoc Diary than this den of ebola spredn' church burn'n iniquity, I will dust off the furniture and open up for him.

PM me if I can be of service.

*undelurks*
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,15:25

Cheers Alan.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 07 2008,16:58

Just visited telic thoughts for the first time.  it looks like 50% of the threads are mike gene promoting mike gene's book.  

Funny how IDC blogs are all about selling products and have nothing science related to offer.  

"fossils? who needs them!"
"birth? the stork did it"
"hate homos, satanists and commies?  buy my ID sciency book!"

I need to find a way to cash in on the tard.  I should spend less time making fun of creationists and more time fleecing them!
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 13 2008,08:14

I decided to utilize < Dembski's Inference > on the ancient conundrum of why the peanut butter always falls face down.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Dembski's Inference: Oh my God. I knew it! I knew it! Demons are causing my peanut butter to always end up face down! Yuck!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valerie has Bradford doing the Pirouette.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: It's not a good means of refuting probability assesments. It's better suited to revealing causality.

< Zachriel >: In other words, it depends on our knowledge of the particulars. And if we are ignorant as to why certain patterns occur, the Inference may yield a false positive. Consequently, Dembski's Inference is unsound. Thanks!

< Bradford >: We also know that unequally weighted and formed objects would not be assessed the same way we would assess a perfectly symetrical coin, for example, in computing odds.

< Zachriel >: That's fine. Where in Dembski's formula do I find the falling dynamics of peanut butter sandwiches? It seems I have to already know the answer to work out the math.

< Bradford >: Where does Dembski imply that his methodology would be applicable to your attempted reduction to absurdity?

< valerie >: I'm not aware that Dembski has placed any limits on the scope of applicability of his methodology. Can you point us to any of his writings that establish such limits? Also, please explain why the methodology is applicable to flipped coins but not to falling slices of peanut-buttered bread.

< Bradford >: Why resort to a statistical analysis when explanations citing a physical cause are available.

< valerie >: Where did you get the idea that causal scenarios are outside the scope of statistical methods?

< Bradford >: Never said they were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 13 2008,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: we are faced with the unpleasant prospect of peanut butter demons or that Dembski's Inference is unsound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 14 2008,21:22

Guts meowed

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does scienticism mean again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know I was wondering the same damn thing!!!one!!!  Spooky, ain't it?



Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2008,10:19

Tardic Tards:

< http://telicthoughts.com/mars-man-or-mars-rock/ >

Even worse than UD...
Posted by: Nerull on Jan. 25 2008,10:32

Joy's post is high quality tard.

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 25 2008,10:38

Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 25 2008,10:32)
Joy's post is high quality tard.

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no it's not. < According to Joy, >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this resolution, it's a suggestive anomaly that begs further examination.

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


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 25 2008,11:00

The "Design Matrix" nonsense makes me laff.  And obviously that's NOT a rock formation on Mars, it's a freakin' Klingon which means Dave Springer was right all along!  OMG!!!
Posted by: Nerull on Jan. 25 2008,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most IDists take a very conservative approach to inferring design. Not only would the evidence indicate design but it would include indicators that a non-design conclusion is implausible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most IDist say "Design!!!!" because their little holy book tells them so.
Posted by: Art on April 21 2008,22:57

< Simply unbelievable >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before writing this off, something like that has already been developed - the patent is jointly held by Monsanto and the USDA - it's called "Terminator Technology." It wasn't deployed because it makes plants sterile and transgenes are highly promiscuous. Just a little tweaking could have such a gene-packet targeted to human sterility, and it could be put into the whole world's staple food crops. Humanity could be sterile in less than 5 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Telic thinking at its finest.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 27 2008,10:32

I'm sure everyone has seen Allen MacNeill's excellent work at Uncommon Descent as documented on the < Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread >. But Teach' MacNeill has just unleashed a double-barrelled blast of pedagogy over at Telic Thoughts.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: And so today, Lynn Margulis's SET {serial endosymbiosis theory} has become the dominant theory explaining not only the origin of eukaryotes, but also the origin of evolutionary novelty at dozens of different levels in biology (see her Acquiring Genomes for a comprehensive review). So well accepted has her work become by evolutionary biologists that finally, after almost four decades, creationists and ID supporters have begun to attack her theories. As she said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The point here is that, if ID wants to become accepted as part of evolutionary biology in the same way that Lynn Margulis's SET has become accepted, then ID supporters have to do the same thing she did: get out in the field and get your hands dirty, and get into the lab and do the same thing. Her ideas were just as unorthodox and unacceptable in 1969 as ID is now. However, she didn't put all of her effort into public relations and political propaganda. No "Symbiosis Institute" dumped millions into the production of deliberately distorted press kits and one-sided propaganda films. Legions of self-appointed experts whose only exposure to biology was in high school classes or what they read on Answers in Genesis or Uncommon Descent bloviated on SET and declared themselves experts after a week of superficial study of articles on Wikipedia...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The difference between her and them is that they can't even begin to claim any credibility in science; their "work" is entirely parasitic on hers, and deserves nothing but contempt.

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------








Posted by: Richardthughes on April 27 2008,12:50

Mike Gene has a good cry about it in the comments.
Posted by: Art on April 27 2008,13:29

LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.


Posted by: k.e.. on April 27 2008,13:46

Quote (Art @ April 27 2008,21:29)
LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And all probably IN HIS OWN publications!!

How can anyone forget Dr. Berlinski interviewing (wait for it...) Dr Berlinski.


Dr Berlinski (and so is my wife) has a persona not unlike our Dr. Dr. Dembski ...er except he's 2 assshats above and askew...or askhimself...or whateva.

PS. Louis isn't schizophrenic..... just the voices won't let him believe him.
Posted by: Art on April 27 2008,14:25

More amusement, courtesy of Bradford:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This ad hom response illustrates the value of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I never see an evolutionary biologist slimed like this and it is not because they are all stellar performers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yeah.  Nothing like < this >.

Typical TT fare.  Heaping lies on top of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Henry J on April 27 2008,18:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As she [Lynn Margulis] said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so the anti-evolutionists do have a use - they're a measuring stick of the importance of new hypotheses. :p



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, the problem with that is that "doing science" would mean actually paying attention to the evidence, which they and we both know would lead right back to the very theory that they're trying to get rid of. Can't have that, ya know! :p

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 27 2008,18:33

Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point of the reference was not Berlinksi. I referred to him out of respect for source material. The point is always what is said. I take every commenter at TT seriously. A HS dropout has the capacity for rational thought and may come out with a gem. Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No 'signs of insecurity' here, nope, nuh-uh.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 27 2008,20:32

I'm just getting started on getting publications out, and I've got three citations from essays of mine on antievolution, two more from the article I co-authored with John Wilkins, and 17 from marine mammal work co-authored with several others.

The chunk of my life I lost in 2004 has set me back badly. I hope to catch up on things soon.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 27 2008,23:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,18:32)
I'm just getting started on getting publications out, and I've got three citations from essays of mine on antievolution, two more from the article I co-authored with John Wilkins, and 17 from marine mammal work co-authored with several others.

The chunk of my life I lost in 2004 has set me back badly. I hope to catch up on things soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incidentally, I think I just figured out why you were photographed at Macarthur BART. The apartment I lived at in north Oakland for 10 years is halfway between that BART station and the NCSE office. (Tho I don't think it was there when I lived there -- I left in '95.)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 27 2008,23:19

I think NCSE was in offices in El Cerrito in 1995. That was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall, but right around front was a pretty decent Mexican restaurant that went some way toward making up for the lack of ambiance. The newer offices off 40th Street in Oakland are much better offices, but in a less attractive neighborhood. No handy Mexican restaurant, fersure, though Nick Matzke kept the Subway at 40th and Telegraph in business.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 27 2008,23:32

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,21:19)
I think NCSE was in offices in El Cerrito in 1995. That was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall, but right around front was a pretty decent Mexican restaurant that went some way toward making up for the lack of ambiance. The newer offices off 40th Street in Oakland are much better offices, but in a less attractive neighborhood. No handy Mexican restaurant, fersure, though Nick Matzke kept the Subway at 40th and Telegraph in business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny, El Cerrito is where I moved in '95 (and still am now). Where in El Cerrito was it?

The best restaurants near the NCSE now would be the Eritrean and Korean restaurants along Telegraph, or maybe the Chinese places on Piedmont Avenue. There's nothing on 40th itself.

40th between MLK and Broadway is a ratty neighborhood. The best I can say for it is that it hasn't gotten any *worse* since 1985.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2008,01:32

< http://telicthoughts.com/mitochondria-in-charge/#comment-181734 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JackT Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 1:21 am | Mike,

Where do you see yourself in ten years? Will you still be wagging your finger at Dawkins and PZ Myers? Posting rabbit pictures? Jiggling scientific articles until they vibrate to the tune of intelligent design? When are you going to be the author of one of those scientific articles? Will you buckle down and get your hands dirty, as Allen mentioned? Or do plan to keep blogging from the sidelines?

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful. I am just curious what you hope to accomplish?


Comment by JackT — April 28, 2008 @ 1:21 am

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



Arf.
Posted by: raguel on April 28 2008,04:47



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

Bradford: Why resort to a statistical analysis when explanations citing a physical cause are available.

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




Interesting position; now take it one step further...
Posted by: slpage on April 28 2008,14:12

Quote (Art @ April 27 2008,13:29)
LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeez....  A paper I published when I was still in grad school has been cited 65 times....

I must be 22 times the scholar Berlinski is!
Posted by: slpage on April 28 2008,14:14

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 27 2008,18:33)
Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


So is that why IDcreationists are so quick to point out Dr.Dr.Dembski's  (irrelevant) credentials?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2008,15:54

Erm, Yay? Mike Gene's mental diarrhoea shows no signs of stopping:

< http://telicthoughts.com/smile-for-the-camera/#comment-181712 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MikeGene Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Hi Bilbo,

Now that sounds like a potential chapter for volume 2. The significance of scoring is not simply coming up with numbers, but in laying out one’s reasoning – thus, the need for a chapter. Yet simply think of proteins from the four perspectives of analogy, discontinuity, rationality, and foresight.


Comment by MikeGene — April 27, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 05 2008,11:26

Mike Gene.

< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/ >
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2008,11:43

Mike Gene it ain't.  The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy.  She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers.  Check it out.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,11:50

Quote (Zachriel @ April 27 2008,11:32)
I'm sure everyone has seen Allen MacNeill's excellent work at Uncommon Descent as documented on the < Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread >. But Teach' MacNeill has just unleashed a double-barrelled blast of pedagogy over at Telic Thoughts.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: And so today, Lynn Margulis's SET {serial endosymbiosis theory} has become the dominant theory explaining not only the origin of eukaryotes, but also the origin of evolutionary novelty at dozens of different levels in biology (see her Acquiring Genomes for a comprehensive review). So well accepted has her work become by evolutionary biologists that finally, after almost four decades, creationists and ID supporters have begun to attack her theories. As she said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The point here is that, if ID wants to become accepted as part of evolutionary biology in the same way that Lynn Margulis's SET has become accepted, then ID supporters have to do the same thing she did: get out in the field and get your hands dirty, and get into the lab and do the same thing. Her ideas were just as unorthodox and unacceptable in 1969 as ID is now. However, she didn't put all of her effort into public relations and political propaganda. No "Symbiosis Institute" dumped millions into the production of deliberately distorted press kits and one-sided propaganda films. Legions of self-appointed experts whose only exposure to biology was in high school classes or what they read on Answers in Genesis or Uncommon Descent bloviated on SET and declared themselves experts after a week of superficial study of articles on Wikipedia...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The difference between her and them is that they can't even begin to claim any credibility in science; their "work" is entirely parasitic on hers, and deserves nothing but contempt.

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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


Post of the Week, regardless of its timestamp.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 05 2008,11:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,12:26)
Mike Gene.

< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow.

brain freeze.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 05 2008,11:57

Quote (olegt @ May 05 2008,09:43)
Mike Gene it ain't.  The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy.  She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers.  Check it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's fascinating. Someone who has declared herself to be of Irish ancestry is basically claiming that the ADL's definition of 'holocaust denier' is wrong, and that the ADL is mistaken in *not* blaming Big Science for the Holocaust.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,11:57

Mike Gene is much smarter and more honest than most creationists, but, in the end, he's still a creationist.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,12:08

MacNeill's last point there is the most interesting thing about the ID movement. Even if ID was correct, which it isn't, the behavior of the ID advocates wouldn't lead to success. Scientific revolutions succeed when the revolutionaries use the new ideas to solve old problems and advance research. The ID community isn't even trying to do this. Their journal sits there, defunct, while they make movies, gripe on the internet, write 'textbooks', and fly around collecting honoraria. (Enjoying Brazil, Paul?) And while some at the top know better, the footsoldiers of ID know so little about science that they don't see the glaring absence of research. Anyone who knows anything about science and how it changes can look at PCID for about 15 seconds and understand that ID is a con game.


Posted by: JAM on May 05 2008,13:32

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 05 2008,11:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,12:26)
Mike Gene.

< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow.

brain freeze.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy Busey's having quite the meltdown.

She got smacked around for suggesting the same thing at Daily Kos:

< http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/1/114545/9274/223#c223 >
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2008,14:19

Joy is a big girl, so she < makes her own definitions >:


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

I am not Jewish, and I am not the ADL (or even AIPAC). I can extend denial of the whole perversion of science that led to the Holocaust under the heading of denial because it IS denial. Sleight of mind, distraction and retreat into narrow definitions is SOP for DDs around here. I do not recognize ADL's "authority" to define the Holocaust - or the American experience that led to it - as an exclusively Jewish horror. "Authority" is what caused the whole mess. I'm not falling for this crazy sleight of mind at this late date.

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


It would be logical to conclude that everyone has the right to ignore her authority, but logic isn't exactly Joy's cup of tea.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 05 2008,14:26

Joy is an angry, unfocused blurt.

Mike Gene is using the Dembski validated 'sycophantic followers and a book to pimp' model.
Posted by: keiths on May 05 2008,15:01

Joy is a veritable fountain of tard.

When I have time over the next few days, I'll post some of her greatest hits.

For now, a teaser.  This is from < a long thread > in which Joy claimed that life depends on superconductivity.  I scoffed, pointing to the lack of evidence for such a claim.  Joy responded that the evidence had been suppressed:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh...

*drops needle to floor as tard high washes over him*

That's the stuff!
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2008,15:04

Oh, the Joy of Tard...
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 06 2008,07:31

< oh joy >.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)


Posted by: keiths on May 06 2008,08:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 06 2008,07:31)
< oh joy >.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a different Joy.  Telic Thoughts Joy is as batty as the Congress Avenue Bridge, but she's not a Bible thumper.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 06 2008,09:27

Gil defines ID:

< http://telicthoughts.com/defining-intelligent-design/#comment-183990 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Based on what we know from modern science and mathematics, design should be the default position, to be refuted with evidence that chance and necessity can account for it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




"We don't know" = "ID". Gotcha Gil. Get back to shaking your simulations.

Where does belly button fuzz come from? Design! There must a non corporeal fuzz fairy or summin'.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 06 2008,09:42

Here's the post that makes Brave sir Robin Sal realize he's left the oven on..


< http://telicthoughts.com/defining-intelligent-design/#comment-184545 >
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 06 2008,12:15

Quote (keiths @ May 06 2008,09:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 06 2008,07:31)
< oh joy >.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

 
Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a different Joy.  Telic Thoughts Joy is as batty as the Congress Avenue Bridge, but she's not a Bible thumper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, thanks.

I was wondering how she might have found her way from whence to thence, as JanieBelle doesn't visit TT (nor do I).

The timing was a misleading coincidence, and it's an entirely different batshit crazy person named Joy.

Lovely, just what we need.

Being completely wrong is becoming a habit with me, I need to remember how to put my brain in gear before my mouth (or fingers, as it were).
Posted by: Zachriel on May 19 2008,07:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo: >: The Apology Thread

don't know if it's appropriate for me to post a thread like this, but my conscience has been bothering me for a while now, and I need to apologize. And since what I did wrong was on this blog, I thought I better make my apology public.

I want to aplogize to Jack T.I lost my temper, and accused you of things that I had no right to accuse you of. There was no excuse for it. If you still read this blog, I offer my sincere apologies for doing so, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is Bilbo apologizing for?  He didn't provide a link. I read through the < AtBC log on Frostman's banning >, but didn't see Bilbo mentioned. Or Nelson Alonso.
Posted by: keiths on May 19 2008,08:36

Quote (Zachriel @ May 19 2008,07:35)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo: >: The Apology Thread

don't know if it's appropriate for me to post a thread like this, but my conscience has been bothering me for a while now, and I need to apologize. And since what I did wrong was on this blog, I thought I better make my apology public.

I want to aplogize to Jack T.I lost my temper, and accused you of things that I had no right to accuse you of. There was no excuse for it. If you still read this blog, I offer my sincere apologies for doing so, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is Bilbo apologizing for?  He didn't provide a link. I read through the < AtBC log on Frostman's banning >, but didn't see Bilbo mentioned. Or Nelson Alonso.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As far as I can tell, Bilbo is apologizing for this comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bilbo Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Jack T.,

Where do you see yourself in 10 years? Still asking irrelevant questions at Telicthoughts? Still refusing to read Mike Gene's books? Still demanding positive evidence for ID, but never asking yourself what would constitute positive evidence? In other words, still never really contributing to either side in the debate? Still being a useless, tiresome sot?

Disrespect fully intended.


Comment by Bilbo — April 29, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 19 2008,21:34

< This comment by Raevmo > deserves wider circulation:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Joy < had to admit > that was funny.
Posted by: olegt on May 19 2008,21:58

Quote (keiths @ May 19 2008,21:34)
< This comment by Raevmo > deserves wider circulation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Joy < had to admit > that was funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


keiths,

I believe the concept originated elsewhere.  Here's ERV:


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

< Goden TARD Award >

When it comes to The Arguments Regarding Design, few people can top our dear friend Egnor.

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


Posted by: stevestory on May 19 2008,23:59

Bilbo seems to imply that in 10 years ID will still be just a few guys arguing on the internet.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,00:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Being a professor doesn't mean you have to be a nice person, or even very smart about real world things - why, it's rudie-boy professors who RUN this so-called culture war! Perhaps Oleg is trading his starring role in a cage for a walk on part in the war.

Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is completely out to lunch. An occasional meanie professor gets a lot of attention, but the fundamental culture war has a history throughout the 20th century. In brief, I'd describe it as a few events. 1) civil rights movements occur all 20th century and cause very uncomfortable changes for whites and men after WW2. 2) Nixon, Buchanan, et al figure out that they can take advantage of the fear and resentment by playing up culture issues like racism in the south and thereby fracture the democratic party. Also, over the course of the century people fled farms and moved to the big city, and there are cultural changes associated with that, and with generally being more educated, and with generally being richer.

I'd say those are the big trends in the culture war. If you think the central trends are too many 20-year-olds robotically parroting their meany biology professor then I think you're about as informed as Kevin James in the green room before Hardball.


Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,00:32

Additionally, I'd say the 'culture war' is basically on the decline. Abortion still gets some heat, but for the most part that group of reactionary voters is aging out. Conservatives and liberals still argue and fight, but then they both go watch Sex and the City, take their contraception, fail to care that their co-worker is black,  their boss is a woman, and that the waiter at lunch was flaming.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2008,06:52

Quote (olegt @ May 19 2008,21:58)
 
Quote (keiths @ May 19 2008,21:34)
< This comment by Raevmo > deserves wider circulation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Joy < had to admit > that was funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


keiths,

I believe the concept originated elsewhere.  Here's ERV:
   

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

< Goden TARD Award >

When it comes to The Arguments Regarding Design, few people can top our dear friend Egnor.

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


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




Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2007,06:55)


Just because the Bar is closed doesn't mean the < TARD >* has to stop.

* The Argument Regarding Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2008,10:47

Joy has a suggestion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread? How about the "Joy is Batshit Insane" thread? Or maybe the "Bradford is Incredibly Stupid, Incredibly Ignorant, and Incredibly Dishonest" thread? The "Guts is a Fascist Lying Bastard" thread?

Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy gives AtBC a love-tap.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: These guys are a nasty piece of work, and it's not art. There is something positively creepy about a web forum calling itself The Critic's Resource that is nothing but a glorified chat-with-graphics for anti-social outcasts wasting endless days and nights calling people names, bitching about how many times they've been banned from other forums for abuse and general delinquency, and howling in rage whenever one of their chosen sacrificial lambs resists the knife and kicks them in the nuts instead of rolling over.

I personally don't know why we put up with ANY AtBC poser on this forum. It's not like they're capable of being what you might call honest or anything. I haven't seen any Swamp denizens offering apologies for bad behavior in this apology thread. And while I can certainly get as frustrated as anyone with juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats, I do not apologize for having little tolerance for narcissists with Asperger's or spoiled brats who need a spanking a whole lot more than they need 'understanding'.

But then, I do have other things to do with my time, and science has already brushed the mud of these dinosaurs off its collective bio-sneakers. Which is just what I predicted long ago would happen when it became inescapable that their restrictive paradigm was flat wrong. Have a happy life, and don't forget to laugh occasionally - it really is absurd!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".

She really does know the inhabitants of AtBC!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,10:56

Thank you Joy for letting me reconcile my "anti-social outcasts" status with being a "poser". Your campaign to protect Telic Tards© / Tardic Thoughts© from reality is admirable, but I think we both know the proper solution: 3.4 metric tonnes of tinfoil.

Mike Gene is using the Dembski model of 'sycophants wooed by sciency sounding stuff'. For goodness sakes, Mikes book is just atrotious. 'Here's four things. Arbitrarily give them a number. Combine them with equal weighting for some reason that isn't explained.' Move over Karl Popper, there's a new kid in town.

Editationalismness for spelink.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,11:01

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,11:04

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,11:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's bitter because reality's not what her holy book says it is!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,11:14

Awesome confusion from Doug!

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192067 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...And why do you think "tard" was selected, Zach.
In grade school we did similar things with Nerd, Jerk and moron. in grade school, Zach.
And why do you think we used those terms to be the head of our acronym?


Comment by Doug — May 20, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

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



Is he saying that NERD is an acronym or is he saying that team jebus picked TARD to describe themselves? Only he knows, and maybe not even!*

*not really a sentence, but I likes it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,11:14

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.

BTW, Joy sounds just like FTK if the latter had passed her SAT's.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 20 2008,11:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:14)
Is he saying that NERD is an acronym or is he saying that team jebus picked TARD to describe themselves? Only he knows, and maybe not even!*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, no speculating about the TermDesigner!
Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2008,11:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,11:14)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be modest.
Posted by: keiths on May 20 2008,12:12

I had to laugh when I saw this.  With impressive hypocrisy, Bradford explains that it is our character flaws that get us banned from blogs like TT:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That group would pretend it is the brilliance of their arguments or an inability of opponents to cope with them that causes their banning. Truthfully it is the corruption of their character and evidence of it is right there in the forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's odd.  Frostman and I were banned for upholding TT's comment policy:
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2007,01:36)
   
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts,

Let me get this straight.  You acknowledge that deleting comments is against TT policy:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you admit to violating that policy -- and not just temporarily:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The memory hole wasn't working for a while. It's working now, I asked that comments be deleted and saved for manual insertion. I am deleting, however, all the whining as well as my own comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You also acknowledge that the misunderstanding was completely your fault.

So Frostman and I were banned because

1) you created a misunderstanding that was completely your fault;
2) you went on to violate TT's comment policy by deleting comments that you never placed in the Memory Hole;
3) neither you nor Bradford stepped in to defuse the situation by telling us that comments were only being deleted temporarily (which, as it turns out, wouldn't have been true anyway);
4) Frostman and I correctly protested the violation of TT's comment policy; and
5) you and/or Bradford banned both of us, knowing the entire time that the whole situation was a "misunderstanding".

Synopsis:  You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

Makes perfect sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you really want to talk about character, Bradford?
Posted by: ERV on May 20 2008,12:12

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,10:47)
Joy has a suggestion.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread?

Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy gives AtBC a love-tap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg.

I laughed HARD at that!

Unfortunately, I was eating cottage cheese with cayenne pepper at the time... painful to snort...
Posted by: Louis on May 20 2008,12:33

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,17:14)
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.

BTW, Joy sounds just like FTK if the latter had passed her SAT's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy I resemble some of those remarks!

Wait a minute!

Louis

P.S. Is she really offering a spanking?

{sound of Mrs Louis entering the room}

What am I doing? Ahahaha, nothing dear.
Posted by: Louis on May 20 2008,12:35

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,17:25)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,11:14)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be modest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.......I think.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,13:41

Quote (ERV @ May 20 2008,12:12)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,10:47)
Joy has a suggestion.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread?

Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy gives AtBC a love-tap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg.

I laughed HARD at that!

Unfortunately, I was eating cottage cheese with cayenne pepper at the time... painful to snort...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should try coffee. Goes down regular comes up through the nose as cappuccino. More of a salty cappuccino, really.

Oh, it was < me. >

Also, Bradford appeals to the authority of... URBAN DICTIONARY.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192068 >


They'll be banning LOLCATS next.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,13:55

Joy, Bless her cotton socks, is upset.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192075 >

Its a big blurt. But here's the bit we'll look at for now:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

Oh, Joy, You are like the queen Tard or something.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 20 2008,13:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm |

Use of terms like tard indicate a shut-down mentality on the part of those flinging the word about. They may pay lip service to the notion that Telic Thoughts is a reasonable place for discourse but true intent is revealed by the remarks of Raevmo and Zachriel. You can't have reasoned exchanges while having to tolerate the trash talk of swamp denizens.

Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
# Alan Fox Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm |

Mote and beam, Bradford, mote and beam.

Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
# Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm |

Was that meant to be an intelligible response Alan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: Further comment would be gilding the lily.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,14:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This completely ignores all the Lolcats here. :angry:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in much the same way as a tree falling in a forest makes noise no matter what, Tard is still Tard whether or not we're here to catalog it and laugh at Joy?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,14:02

FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,14:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 20 2008,14:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?
Posted by: olegt on May 20 2008,15:02

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 20 2008,14:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,15:46)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/#comment-184986 >

Everybody on that thread (including < mynym >.  mynym!) politely told her that she was off her rocker.  That didn't help much.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,15:49

Gerrin there Alan Fox:

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192087 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | # Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm |

Was that meant to be an intelligible response Alan?

You need me to explain?! Matthew 7:3

You complain about others using the word "tard" in a comment where you say:


You can't have reasoned exchanges while having to tolerate the trash talk of swamp denizens.

And you find my comment unintelligble?

Inconceivable!


Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

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



No comic sans for you!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,16:46

Mike Gene on The Argument Regarding Design.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192094 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Great! now tell us what them Negros do, Mike.

Here's the new scientism TARD test

rate each criteria from 1 to 5, add the scores, then declare TARD anyway.

The bible. Do they bash it? Bash it real good with their sandals on?

Assclownery. Are they? Do they make a proper Bradford of themselves?

Reality averse. Do they abhor facts and research?

Doesn't work in Biology. That's rubbish for understanding Biology. You need an engineer for that.

This will all be in my book which I will be shamelessly touting on my heavily moderated blog.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 20 2008,17:14

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,14:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ewwwww. That is just a little graphic, don't you think? I mean, Arden and RO'B are welcome to do whatever they want to each other, but I really don't need the visual imagery.   :angry:
Posted by: keiths on May 20 2008,17:16

Behold a marvel of hypocrisy and rationalization.  Bradford < explains > why name-calling is wrong, except when he does it:
 
Quote (Bradford @ May 20 2008,5:54)

 
Quote (Raevmo @ May 20 2008,5:48)
You are a hypocrite since you routinely engage in name-calling and various ad-homs. Fine by me, but don't deny it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me do some more name calling then. The quote is worth repeating as it is so applicable.

 
Quote (Mike Gene @ May 20 2008, 5:12)
Look, I suppose I can somewhat understand the appeal of ridiculing another as a ‘tard,’ especially when it is part of herd behavior. It’s the type of insult many of us remember from 7th and 8th grade. It appeals to our immature and primitive tribalistic instincts, as the label helps to denigrate the outgroup while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie and superiority among the herd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note the difference in our name calling. You frequently label others and have used choice words like stupid, dishonest, hypocrite… As Harry Truman once said (paraphrasing) and this applies to you:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you'd stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,18:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,14:55)
Joy, Bless her cotton socks, is upset.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192075 >

Its a big blurt. But here's the bit we'll look at for now:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

Oh, Joy, You are like the queen Tard or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's one thing that can shut us up: them getting results.

Real scientific revolutions solve problems. They figure new things out. They force the scientific community to jump on the bandwagon or get left behind. They do hard work and they get results. < ID doesn't get results. > IDers just sit around babbling to each other. Real scientific revolutions don't consist of the internet babblings of nitwits like Bradford and Salvador, or propaganda movies, they consist of a few beleaguered scientists overcoming the objections of their peers by getting shit done.

As long as ID continues to be a clown show, as long as it continues to be a collection of ridiculous people promoting stupid misunderstandings of science, and not actually doing any new science with an ID hypothesis, we will continue to make fun of it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 20 2008,20:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,16:46)
Mike Gene on The Argument Regarding Design.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192094 >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


But ID is nonsense. There's no there there. How are we supposed to be apologetic for understanding reality?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,20:17

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,16:37)
They do hard work and they get results. ID doesn't get results. IDers just sit around babbling to each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How unfair! That's not all they do. Robert Marks, for example, stays up late on campus making little cartoons in Photoshop.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,22:40

Mike Gene really needs to ponder why scientists think ID is unproductive nonsense. There's a real easy insight he should be having about that. Until he does, I'm afraid people are indeed going to assume those things about him.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,22:44

Maybe Mike could go to a university library and create two stacks. One stack would be all the publications in evolutionary journals so far this calendar year. The other stack could be all the publications in the ID journal so far this calendar year, which is to say, a blank spot on the desk. Then maybe he could stare, back and forth, for a few hours if need be, and see if anything springs to mind...
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,22:50

Let's help Mike out. Show him we're nice folks.

evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:




come on Mike...you can do it!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 21 2008,08:49

*ahem*

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192068 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Here are some definitions of tard from the urban dictionary.

1. tard: Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'

2. tard: Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties but for whatever reason has opted out of using it. Whereas mental retardation is genetic in nature, this form of behavior is environmental usually resulting in too much daytime television, Brittany Spears piped in pop music, and other environmental factors.

My own view is that its useage constitutes a bannable offense. Let those so inclined use it in the swamps.


Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 12:24 pm

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



Urban Dictionary:

< http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.....3099020 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  TARD      

Tard is an acronym for "The Argument Regarding Design" which concerns the Neo-Palean endeavour of finding God in things, only you're not allowed to call him God anymore.

'Telic Thoughts' is a great website for TARD

Bradford and Joy lead the field of TARD

design god interwebs bradford lolcats
by William Dembski May 20, 2008 email it  


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



Now that this is settled to every-one's satisfaction, comments are closed.
Posted by: dogdidit on May 21 2008,08:56

"Neo-Palean" - that's gold right there. But I'm new at this; has "Paley-ontology" been taken?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 21 2008,12:55

Can someone poke the 'apology' thread there please, I feel there is more TARD to mine. bonus points if you can get another nugget from Joy.
Posted by: JackT on May 22 2008,00:19

Um.  Yeah.  I am banned.

I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts.  In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.

"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet.  He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.

I must say I am surprised.  Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway).  But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true.  Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2008,00:23

Quote (JackT @ May 22 2008,00:19)
Um.  Yeah.  I am banned.

I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts.  In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.

"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet.  He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.

I must say I am surprised.  Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway).  But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true.  Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome JackT!
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,07:31

Hi JackT and welcome to the club.  After much posturing, Mike Gene < did answer > your questions.  His response boils down to this:
 

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

Q.: [Do you see yourself in 10 years] jiggling scientific articles until they vibrate to the tune of intelligent design?

A.: Probably, since the stack continues to grow. What’s so fascinating (to me, at least) is that all it takes is some gentle jiggling and the rabbit pokes his head out. This is because so much of molecular, cell, and evolutionary biology has become quite friendly (unintentionally so) to a teleological perspective and I expect this trend to continue. So why wouldn’t I maintain such an interest?

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


This is best left without comment.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 22 2008,08:27



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

After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.

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



I know quite a few IDC advocates who would fit into a "sincere but deluded" category, and I at least recognize the cognitive sway of confirmation bias.

That's probably not enough to get Mike Gene to stop yelling "Stereotyping!", though.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 22 2008,09:42

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2008,06:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know quite a few IDC advocates who would fit into a "sincere but deluded" category, and I at least recognize the cognitive sway of confirmation bias.

That's probably not enough to get Mike Gene to stop yelling "Stereotyping!", though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mike's mistake is in thinking that stereotypes are by definition false.
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,10:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,12:55)
Can someone poke the 'apology' thread there please, I feel there is more TARD to mine. bonus points if you can get another nugget from Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here she is, in < Bunny and a Book >:


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

And this is no doubt what makes the "RM/NS" shorthand so popular among both IDers and DDs. The DDs like it (and teach it to everybody's children as the most instruction in biological evolution a huge majority of them ever receive) because it's catchy like a propaganda slogan, it's easy to impart, and it artificially supports their preference for selection as life's designer. IDers like it because it's so easily revealed to BE simplistic, dumbed-down pablum that looks a lot like ideological sloganeering, which leaves wide open the actual source and nature of biological evolution.

The deal is, it is known that biological evolution doesn't work exclusively or even primarily by RM/NS. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on. Obviously the pablum doesn't sell well to the public (or their children), since upwards of 60% don't believe it even after taking the requisite indoctrination and passing the test. The DD answer to that situation?

"Waaaaaa! You don't know enough to make that judgment!"

Which is darned lame. Of course they know enough to judge RM/NS insufficient for explanation - they were taught it on purpose, supposedly so they'd have enough knowledge to judge. When they DO judge, the truth comes out clearly - they were taught simplistic pablum that science knows very well to be insufficient! Tell me, aiguy… whose fault is that?

I'm just reading, don't care to enter into the arguments here. I simply note that you're pushing the pablum as if we're all 15-year old hormone-addled school children, when reality is that we are well beyond the RM/NS scam and have been for a long time. It's just a little bit insulting when you resort to this smokescreen when objects to your definitional distractions, that's all.

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


Zachriel provides a quick < smackdown by reductio ad absurdum >:


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

The deal is, it is known that planets don't orbit exclusively or even primarily by tracing ellipses. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on.

Turns out that elliptical orbits are a oversimplification of chaotic planetary dynamics. Why do they lie to children!?

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2008,10:46

What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,10:53

I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  

In freshman physics we solve problems about planets moving in (gasp!) circular orbits.  We teach < Amontons' laws of friction > even though duct tapes and post-it notes violate both the 1st and 2nd of those.  There are no material points and ideal gases in Nature, etc. etc.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 22 2008,10:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2008,08:46)
What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Doctors of Divinity"?
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,10:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2008,10:46)
What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Darwin defenders >, I suppose.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2008,11:26

Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2008,10:46)
What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Darwin defenders >, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's a Strawman, and denies all the things that came after Darwin (genetics, etc)
Posted by: Zachriel on May 23 2008,08:18

Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:53)
I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever watched the pirouette of the Earth and Moon as they orbit the Sun? In the Platonic Realm, an ellipse is an ellipse. The Moon's orbit around the sun is not much of an ellipse, but more of dodecagon with rounded corners (and even then, the orbits don't line up).

< >

If the Moon were pulled over and told to walk an ellipse, poor Luna would fail the sobriety test—again. (And let's not even bring up navigating the Asteroid Belt.)
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 23 2008,08:47

Quote (Zachriel @ May 23 2008,03:18)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:53)
I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever watched the pirouette of the Earth and Moon as they orbit the Sun? In the Platonic Realm, an ellipse is an ellipse. The Moon's orbit around the sun is not much of an ellipse, but more of dodecagon with rounded corners (and even then, the orbits don't line up).

< >

If the Moon were pulled over and told to walk an ellipse, poor Luna would fail the sobriety test—again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously!
Posted by: stevestory on May 25 2008,16:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligence: A Useful Concept
Posted in Random Stuff on May 24th, 2008 by Bradford

Despite assertions to the contrary scientists, social scientists, educators and professionals in many fields have found the term intelligence to be both a useful concept and one that can be used in conjuction with explanations related to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://telicthoughts.com/intelligence-a-useful-concept/ >

That Bradford is as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 27 2008,09:23

More Telic Tards:

< http://telicthoughts.com/naive-realism-redux/#comments >

Keep up the good work OlegT & Zach.
Posted by: JackT on June 01 2008,16:32

I emailed Guts (his address was listed at Telic Thoughts) asking him to check the server logs to verify that I have no sock puppets.  I do not know if he is the site administrator, but based on posts here it looks like he has some sort of admin priviledges.  His response,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shut up frostman, you're pathetic lol. thanks for the ongoing entertainment this past year, it's been a hoot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

My follow-up,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At antievolution.org I took the criticism against Telic Thoughts with a grain of salt.  But now I see the irrational and unscrupulous behavior first-hand.  It would be easy to dismiss one data point, but with two it becomes harder to dismiss.  Ultimately I feel sorry for you, as you cannot seem to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate conduct.  You act rather young; I lament for this current generation of unscrupulous kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I wrote to Mike Gene's "idthink" email address with the same request but I did not receive a response.

Since I was banned before I had a chance to post on that thread ("The Apology Thread"), I left a response to Bilbo at his blog.  In that I said, in part: I am tempted to wax philosophical about how ID proponents are inclined to believe in propositions without evidence. It is enough, however, to merely state the facts: (1) "anon9" is not my sock puppet; (2) several members of Telic Thoughts assumed he/she is a sock puppet, without evidence; (3) I was banned on this assumption; (4) It would be trivial to clear my name by checking to server logs to confirm that anon9 is not my sock puppet; (5) This check was requested and (very immaturely) refused.
Posted by: JackT on June 01 2008,17:32

And may I add: is it not ironic that Mike Gene is himself a sock puppet?  It is no secret that for years the person who currently calls himself Mike Gene posted at talk.origins under the name Julie Thomas using the nntp feed at Case Western Reserve University.  And Michael Thomas (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/thomas.htm) is probably the same person as well.
Posted by: olegt on June 05 2008,09:39

Quote (JackT @ June 01 2008,17:32)
And may I add: is it not ironic that Mike Gene is himself a sock puppet?  It is no secret that for years the person who currently calls himself Mike Gene posted at talk.origins under the name Julie Thomas using the nntp feed at Case Western Reserve University.  And Michael Thomas (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/thomas.htm) is probably the same person as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JackT,

MikeGene < responded >.
Posted by: olegt on June 05 2008,09:42

< Zachriel > on the purported analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation:


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

I have no objection to shoe-leather. Indeed, I strongly support such an approach. The problem is that the putative spokespersons for the ID Movement claim to have strong evidence of the perpetrator, can't name the suspect, and their theories are rejected as vacuous or simply false by the courts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch!  Zachriel, you mean bully.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 05 2008,11:19

Same old same old. Unspecified actions done by an unspecified agency having unspecified capabilities and limitations, done at unspecified times and places for unspecified reasons using unspecified methods, leaving no evidence.

Poof.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 05 2008,13:14

DougTard:

< http://telicthoughts.com/another-version-of-csi/#comment-193475 >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doug Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm | I got one, olegt.
How about intelligent professors being so embattled in their position they would call someone a 'tard'?


Comment by Doug — June 5, 2008 @ 2:02 pm

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


Posted by: Zachriel on June 05 2008,13:24

Quote (olegt @ June 05 2008,09:42)
< Zachriel > on the purported analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation:


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

I have no objection to shoe-leather. Indeed, I strongly support such an approach. The problem is that the putative spokespersons for the ID Movement claim to have strong evidence of the perpetrator, can't name the suspect, and their theories are rejected as vacuous or simply false by the courts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch!  Zachriel, you mean bully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't try to be so, but from < chunkdz >'s responses, I think I did draw blood.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,06:52

Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus < in this thread >.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 06 2008,08:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: That's Dembski's opinion. Who cares other than a handful of people absorbed in discussions of intelligent design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. Good one.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 06 2008,08:29

Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,06:52)
Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus < in this thread >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totally. Enjoyable reading.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2008,09:08

Funny Stuff. AngryOldFatman, it that's your area of 'expertise', you might want to get into something different..


Then Sal bangs on about genetic entropy again.. *sigh*


Sal, that dog don't hunt no more...
< http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117048.aspx >
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,09:32

Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2008,08:24)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: That's Dembski's opinion. Who cares other than a handful of people absorbed in discussions of intelligent design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. Good one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How odd.  Bradford usually falls all over himself to defend Dembski.

Some time ago Bradford < wrote >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much criticism of Dembski is of the demonization variety. He is a symbol of a hated concept.

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


In response, I < pointed out > that Dembski had done a good job of demonizing himself, listing:

1. The "street theater" incident involving Jeff Shallit's deposition.
2. The Judge Jones fart animation fiasco.
3. Dembski's accusations of racism against Kevin Padian.
4. Dembski's reporting of Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.
5. His claim that Richard Dawkins had only a handful of scientific publications and citations.
6. And perhaps my favorite, his posting of an anonymous review on Amazon's website which badmouthed Mark Perakh's book and plugged his own.

Bradford's reply?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, most of the Dembski sins are in the foible category in my view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2008,10:15

You forgot:

Getting upset that Dawkins is a successful author ("cashing in on ID")
Getting upset that Dawkins hadn't posted his ironic birthday message (when he had)
The many, many 404 Notpologies.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 06 2008,10:26

Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,06:52)
Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus < in this thread >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From that thread:



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

So yes, I think it's clear that this argument holds up perfectly well:

1) Computers operate according to deterministic law (or law + chance)
2) Computers are bona-fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Also:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, you really are mistaken completely. I am regularly suprised (and usually disappointed) by what my programs do.


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



The computer program has  sinned!  :O
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2008,15:00

Can we get some 'Chinese room' in there also? I'd register, but I'm probably prebanned by JoyTard.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,16:13

Bradford is getting pounded in that thread.  Of course 90% of the damage is self-inflicted, Bradford being Bradford.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,20:46

WTF?

This is the first time I've seen Salvador < claim to have worked > at the EIL:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 06 2008,21:37

My comment at TT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  steve Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 10:31 pm | Edit This

I wish Sal was telling the truth and he actually worked at EIL. ID could use more labwork and less internet philosophizing.

Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We'll see if it stays.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,21:45

The evolution of a lie:
Quote (Salvador @ Sept 01 2007)
I have been accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. I attempted to apply both at Hopkins and at Baylor. I was attempting to work with Dr. Robert Marks at the evolutionary informatics lab. I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.

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


Quote (Salvador @ Oct 31 2007)
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Salvador @ June 06 2008)
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity.

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


< link >
< link >
< link >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 06 2008,22:03

Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,07:32)
1. The "street theater" incident involving Jeff Shallit's deposition.
2. The Judge Jones fart animation fiasco.
3. Dembski's accusations of racism against Kevin Padian.
4. Dembski's reporting of Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.
5. His claim that Richard Dawkins had only a handful of scientific publications and citations.
6. And perhaps my favorite, his posting of an anonymous review on Amazon's website which badmouthed Mark Perakh's book and plugged his own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget him publicly posting the home addresses and phone numbers of the Baylor regents, so that the UDers could harass them into reinstituting the ID 'lab'.
Posted by: stevestory on June 06 2008,22:19

It appears I've been put in the moderation queue at TT. I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity.

my moderated comment is preserved here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mikegene said:


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

Just as I have maintained for so long that ID is not science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

#

Mike, please take the following comments in the benevolent way I intend them:

"ID" in the parlance of our time means something different than how you're using it. Generally speaking when someone says Intelligent Design, they use it to mean

1) a valid scientific theory
2) comprised of IC and CSI
3) that disproves the theory of evolution
4) has nothing to do with religion
5) belongs in science classes
6) but is suppressed by a conspiracy of atheist scientists

to broadly outline it. If your argument is significantly different than that, it just confuses the issue to also call it "Intelligent Design".

What I'm saying might not be clear. So for example, let's say you were a tree-hugging communitarian type who really felt a lot of love for his country. And you said, hmm, I'm going to call myself a National Socialist, or Nazi for short. While your beliefs might literally fit that kind of usage, you're giving yourself a label which really carries a lot of baggage and means a lot of things you don't mean. So that makes it a bad label, and you need to get a different one.

Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 06 2008,22:23

The creationists need to grow a pair.

(By which I mean a pair of ovaries, like ERV. That girl's a wolverine.



RUN! RUN!

)
Posted by: stevestory on June 07 2008,00:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am |  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   steve wrote:

   I wish Sal was telling the truth and he actually worked at EIL. ID could use more labwork and less internet philosophizing.

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

I did a little volunteer work for EIL since I was interested in the topic….a lot of ID work is not paid for, if you haven't noticed….

My small amounts of volunteer work (particularly in connection with Avida) was partly the reason I was offered a tuition and stipend, not to mention I got a good reference from Bill Dembski.

If you're accusing me of lying steve, you're welcome to say you're opinion….but it's just that, an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 12:12 am |  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   olegt asked:

   Sal, when did you work at EIL? I thought you went to Hopkins instead?

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

I did volunteer work via e-mail and phone from 2006-2007 sporadically. I don't know that it was formally known as EIL until whenever, but the nature of the work was the same — analyze Avida.

My small amounts of volunteer work (particularly in connection with Avida) was partly the reason I was offered a tuition and stipend, not to mention I got a good reference from Bill Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



my reply:


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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you're accusing me of lying steve, you're welcome to say you're [sic] opinion….but it's just that, an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal, you said in October 2007 that you had been offered a position, but that the lab was cancelled and you declined the position.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did volunteer work via e-mail and phone from 2006-2007 sporadically. I don't know that it was formally known as EIL until whenever, but the nature of the work was the same — analyze Avida.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've emailed and talked on the phone with Wesley Elsberry about AVIDA, but I don't tell people I worked at the Devolab at MSU, because that would be dishonest. You need to not exaggerate your accomplishments if you want to retain credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 07 2008,00:11

LOL



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 1:01 am |

steve,

Your swipes at me are off-topic, and you can post your complaints about me in the lastest rabbit thread.

What you're doing is derailing the discussion….

Sal

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 1:01 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know wtf the rabbit thread is, but it sounds like bannination.
Posted by: stevestory on June 07 2008,00:16

that's so great. 'Pointing out my lies derails the discussion! Das ist verboten!!!!!!!!!11111111'

UD and TT: tards of a feather.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 07 2008,06:27

MikeGene blogs,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: The analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation is useful in many ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MikeGene demonstrates his powers of suspiciosity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: At this point, we ask a question. Did Zachriel try to derail the thread on purpose or was it an accident?
...
Yes, it's a function of evidence, and the evidence indicates you tried to derail the thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, MikeGene. Your powers of suspiciosity are faulty. From < shoe-leather > to < Sherlock Holmes >, I made every attempt to contribute to the analogy.

< >
Posted by: JackT on June 07 2008,17:38

Mike,

Wow.  You are either being willfully blind to counter-evidence or you are being outright dishonest.  You failed to mention that most of my posts were *not* made from an anonymous proxy.

I do use a proxy when I post from work.  I would advise everyone to use a proxy when posting from work.  Given the ideologically charged nature of the subject, it is not unlikely that a deranged kook could launch a DoS (or some other) attack on the originating IP address.  This does not matter so much for an anonymous residential ISP, where one can either ask the ISP to block the attacks or obtain a new IP by resetting the cable modem.  But for a work IP address the problem is huge, causing loss of business while threatening one's job security in the process.  If it is not commonplace for people to use a proxy from work, then it should be.

Now if I had *always* used an anonymous proxy then the situation would be completely different.  There would be no anchor point at all, no unique signature.  But you do have a unique signature: the Comcast Cable IP address used for the vast majority of my posts, which is obviously not a proxy.  By omitting this fact you have willingly made a fraudulent argument.  How many of my posts used a proxy?  One?  Two?  Shame on you.

So that explains the proxy.  No case there.  Next:

   

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

1. If we go back to the thread where you ask your multiple questions, many of us immediately recognized the disrespectful nature of that posting. You tried to spin it differently by portraying the questions as follows: "The questions certainly are direct, and they constitute a challenge." A couple of weeks later, anon9 is the only one to repeat this very spin: "His last posts were challenging Mike directly."

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



As I said previously in email, my questions were no more strident than what a British journalist would ask a British politician.  And as olegt said, it seems that it wasn't just my tone that offended you.  My tone is a different matter, however, which may be set aside for the moment.

Wait!  I just mentioned olegt, and I used almost the same phrase as he did: "it seems that it wasn't just my tone that offended you."  Does this mean I am a sock puppet of olegt?  No, I referenced olegt by name and attributed the quote to him.  In the same manner, anon9 referenced my post directly and repeated the same phrasing.  That you we see this as suspicious is odd to say the least.

   

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

2. Bilbo makes an understandable mistake in his OP – he refers to JackT as Jack T. I myself made this mistake in my early replies to you, as it comes from not paying close attention to a new person's screen name. anon9 neither makes the same mistake nor follows Bilbo's lead from the OP. He gets this trivial detail right – it's JackT from the start.

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



In anon9's post, he or she made reference to a weeks-old post.  If you do not assume what you are trying to prove, namely that anon9 is me, then the conclusion is that anon9 is a lurker.  He's talking about a post in the past!  He was lurking and he knows about JackT.  The vast majority of posters have *not* made the "Jack T"-instead-of-"JackT" mistake.  This puts anon9 into that vast majority.  Again I am quite amazed that you would view something like this as "evidence."

   

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

3. Mostly importantly, anon9 knows JackT’s very last posting: “His very last one embarrassed Joy (though deservedly so).” How many lurkers could accurately cite the very last posting of another TT member that was a couple of weeks old, especially a member who is new and hasn’t posted much? At the time, JackT wasn’t banned and no one had reason to think he was banned (anon9 is the first and only one to make that accusation). It gets even better. JackT’s questioning of Joy is buried in a thread with close to 200 comments and no one else seemed to notice that brief line of off-topic questioning (at least no one commented on it or followed it up). I noticed it only because I was looking for JackT while I was waiting for JackT to reply to my questions and answers. And then there is the fact that Joy shows no evidence of being embarrassed, but one might imagine the giggling JackT thought he had embarrassed Joy (JackT: “No results found in the standard legal databases. *giggle*”). Again, anon9 seems to be the only one who agrees.

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



Again, if you do not already assume what you are trying to prove, then the conclusion is that anon9 is a lurker.  And again I am in near disbelief that I have to point the following out to you.  The thread was about JackT.  It was an apology to JackT from Bilbo.  But Bilbo does not link to or reference what he is apologizing for.  Before the days of google, you *may* have had a point.  But since we do not live in the early 90s, and since anon9 is probably motivated to find the wrongdoing on behalf of Bilbo, he conducts the simple search:

< http://www.google.com/search?....+Search >

And with that he sees the complete history of JackT at Telic Thoughts.  Whether I made a post in a thread with 200 comments, 20000 comments, or 20 comments is immaterial.  My comments are all in plain view.  As you mentioned, there aren't many of them.

Joy made an extraordinary claim: that she witnessed "the only legally established miracle in American jurisprudence."  Just pause for a moment consider how significant this would be.  If there were such a "legally established miracle," it would be made famous by apologists and trumpeted ad infinitum.

When asked for a way to verify her claim, Joy did not answer.  A skeptical person would conclude that in all likelihood Joy is mistaken.  Thus your argument here boils down to: "JackT and anon9 are both skeptical, ergo they are the same person."

And Mike, I *hope* you did not mean to imply that anon9 made his post *after* I was banned.  That would indeed be suspicious.  But in fact I anon9 posted *before* I was banned.  Big difference.

   

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

Okay, we’re supposed to believe you stumbled upon this blog and were simply perplexed, wondering "What the heck is going on here?" But go back to one of your disrespectful questions: “Will you still be wagging your finger at Dawkins and PZ Myers?” Do you notice the problem?

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



I need only quote the first sentence of the first post I made at Telic Thoughts, < http://telicthoughts.com/the-rabbits-eye-view-of-the-duck >



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

Hello Mike,

I've skimmed through the archives here in order to get some bearing on your point of view, but frankly I haven't been able to get a clear picture.

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



Most or many of my posts at Telic Thoughts were focused on trying to understand your position, up to and including the last questions I asked you.  As you see above, I said at the very beginning that I was reading the archives.

And again you are operating under early-90s assumptions.  Google is your friend.  A key ingredient in assessing a person's point of view of ID is his attitude toward religion.  If you google "site:telicthoughts.com MikeGene religion", Myers is the third hit and Dawkins is the tenth.  Both are on the first page.  Since I read Dawkins and Myers, my curiousity was piqued.  You may choose not to believe me, but you cannot claim that your argument has merit, especially when I told you explicitly that I was rummaging through the history of Telic Thoughts.

The rest of your response consists of the proxy red herring, which I have already covered.

JackT
Posted by: keiths on June 07 2008,18:07

Joy < wrote >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for cool subject matter, sorry I've been so busy. Carry on, I hope you all settle the matter. But I doubt that it'll be settled between critics in a manner satisfactory to me. That's okay, since if everybody agreed with me I'd think something was very, very wrong with the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If everybody agreed with Joy, I'd commit suicide.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2008,18:18



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

Again I am quite amazed that you would view something like this as "evidence."

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



I'm not. Of course, I've been reading "Julie Thomas/Mike Gene" stuff since the early 90s. There's no bar too low for confirmatory "evidence" there.

Edit: The other way works, too, in that "Mike Gene"-land there is no bar too high for disconfirmatory evidence.


Posted by: keiths on June 10 2008,21:32

For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,21:39

Quote (keiths @ June 10 2008,22:32)
For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?

Seems like there was a real spanking involved...

ETA: or am I thinking of someone else?


Posted by: keiths on June 10 2008,22:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 10 2008,21:39)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 10 2008,22:32)
For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?

Seems like there was a real spanking involved...

ETA: or am I thinking of someone else?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, TP is the one who came over here and tried to lecture several of us on physics, before deciding he was safer in a woo-friendly environment like Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Henry J on June 10 2008,22:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember "The Traveling Twin Takes a Short Cut", from late January and early February this year?

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,23:39

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not senile, and that...

...what was I saying?
Posted by: olegt on June 11 2008,07:32

Quote (Henry J @ June 10 2008,22:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember "The Traveling Twin Takes a Short Cut", from late January and early February this year?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some of us also followed TP to < Telic Thoughts >.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 11 2008,10:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I see [sic] Rubin you've not even attempted to create a set of differential equations which will inevitably lead to a self replicating computer.

No I refutued that even your mischaracterization didn't hold water, [sic] Robbin.

By the way, [[sic] sick] Rubin, for the readers benefit ...

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


Robin had properly used the term sic (thus) to indicate that a misspelling was not a transcription error, but found in the original comment. Salvador T. Cordova turns it into self-parody.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 11 2008,11:02

Quote (Zachriel @ June 11 2008,18:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: II see [sic] Rubin you've not even attempted to create a set of differential equations which will inevitably lead to a self replicating computer.

No I refutued that even your mischaracterization didn't hold water, [sic] Robbin.

By the way, [[sic] sick] Rubin, for the readers benefit ...

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


Robin had properly used the term sic (thus) to indicate that a misspelling was not a transcription error, but found in the original comment. Salvador T. Cordova turns it into self-parody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then he will get this joke on misused latin "SEEK TRAINSEAT GLORIA MONDAY"
Posted by: stevestory on June 15 2008,18:45

< Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown >

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.
Posted by: olegt on June 15 2008,18:52

Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,18:45)
< Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown >

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That thread is pretty long.  Here is a direct link to < Sal's comment on Brown >.

ETA: Walt's name was brought up by < Thought Provoker > who offered this delightful euphemism:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Mike,

I think, therefore I am.

I can only presume that other people think at all, much less what they think unless they present it.

I find it difficult to trust people who do not honestly and openly present what they think and defend it.

I offer Walt Brown as a religiously oriented thinker willing to honestly present and defend his hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must say that I actually enjoy TP's company there.  He's a good sport.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 15 2008,22:04

Quote (olegt @ June 15 2008,18:52)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,18:45)
< Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown >

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That thread is pretty long.  Here is a direct link to < Sal's comment on Brown >.

ETA: Walt's name was brought up by < Thought Provoker > who offered this delightful euphemism:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Mike,

I think, therefore I am.

I can only presume that other people think at all, much less what they think unless they present it.

I find it difficult to trust people who do not honestly and openly present what they think and defend it.

I offer Walt Brown as a religiously oriented thinker willing to honestly present and defend his hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must say that I actually enjoy TP's company there.  He's a good sport.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP has quantum on the brain, so to speak.  :D
Posted by: stevestory on June 16 2008,02:35

I've been reading Telic Thoughts lately. I don't know much about the site, but reading the comments today I got the feeling that it's like an intervention, and a lot of the commenters are sympathetic and trying to talk "Mike Gene" out of saying such stupid things. Anybody else get that feeling.
Posted by: olegt on June 16 2008,06:26

The thread < Evidence and Truth > is a gem.  The opening post ends in the following way:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth.  Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on June 16 2008,06:42

Quote (olegt @ June 16 2008,06:26)
The thread < Evidence and Truth > is a gem.  The opening post ends in the following way:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth.  Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Your first comment is a concise summation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Evidence, Shmevidence…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on June 16 2008,07:33

The Pixie, puzzled by Mike's opening post, < asks >:


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

What else are you suggesting we use, Mike?

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


Have at it, boys.  

My entry: Use the Force, Luke.
Posted by: keiths on June 16 2008,21:28

Have you ever wondered what life would be like under a theocracy?

Watch what happens when a commenter named 'robin' confronts the Telic Tards with these two Bible verses:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Priceless.

< Link >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 16 2008,21:41

Quality thread. BUT IT MUST BE MORAL, IT COMES FROM GOD...
Posted by: stevestory on June 21 2008,17:20

Here's an interesting bit I saw recently at TT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  robin Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm |

Since this is a 'Speak Your Mind' thread, I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time.

Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).

What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.

I'm not saying that every ID supporter should police every statement made by fellow supporters. We are not our brothers' keepers, after all. I'm also not saying that ID supporters at Telic Thoughts should go out of their way to monitor statements made on other blogs. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But Sal has behaved this way on this very blog, and certainly many of his offensive actions elsewhere have been noted here by critics. It seems odd that he has been criticized so rarely, if at all, by ID supporters here. (If you think I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary).

Though I may disagree with ID supporters on many issues, I do believe that almost all of you take morality seriously, and that your moral codes do not sanction the kind of behavior Sal consistently indulges in.

His dishonesty and weird ad hominems are not just distasteful, they are downright counterproductive to his aims. Since Sal likes to portray himself as being among the leaders of the ID movement, those who don't know better might think that this is what ID is about, and that this is how IDers argue. I also suspect that the lack of repudiation by fellow ID supporters leads some observers to the conclusion that Sal's tactics enjoy general approval. That is a terrible message to be sending.

Perhaps some of you haven't said anything because you thought that ID critics were taking care of the problem. Indeed, ID critics have learned to keep an eye on Salvador and are pretty quick to point out his offenses, so it's possible that many of you have felt no reason to add anything when the critics have already weighed in.

If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

The more opinions, the better.

Thanks. I feel better, having gotten that off my chest.

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


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 21 2008,17:32

Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2008,15:20)
Here's an interesting bit I saw recently at TT:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  robin Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm |

Since this is a 'Speak Your Mind' thread, I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time.

Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).

What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.

I'm not saying that every ID supporter should police every statement made by fellow supporters. We are not our brothers' keepers, after all. I'm also not saying that ID supporters at Telic Thoughts should go out of their way to monitor statements made on other blogs. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But Sal has behaved this way on this very blog, and certainly many of his offensive actions elsewhere have been noted here by critics. It seems odd that he has been criticized so rarely, if at all, by ID supporters here. (If you think I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary).

Though I may disagree with ID supporters on many issues, I do believe that almost all of you take morality seriously, and that your moral codes do not sanction the kind of behavior Sal consistently indulges in.

His dishonesty and weird ad hominems are not just distasteful, they are downright counterproductive to his aims. Since Sal likes to portray himself as being among the leaders of the ID movement, those who don't know better might think that this is what ID is about, and that this is how IDers argue. I also suspect that the lack of repudiation by fellow ID supporters leads some observers to the conclusion that Sal's tactics enjoy general approval. That is a terrible message to be sending.

Perhaps some of you haven't said anything because you thought that ID critics were taking care of the problem. Indeed, ID critics have learned to keep an eye on Salvador and are pretty quick to point out his offenses, so it's possible that many of you have felt no reason to add anything when the critics have already weighed in.

If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

The more opinions, the better.

Thanks. I feel better, having gotten that off my chest.

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


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


My explanatory filter predicts that Sal will never change and that after attacking Robin, ID supporters will ignore Robin's advice.

Got that? Write it down!
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2008,10:22

There are now at least 13 Telic Tards currently trying to pry their offended eyes from their sockets (well, as soon as they finish reading the smut and scrolling with the wrong hand evaluating the depravity of the enemy of Jesus).

< Thank you robin >.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2008,15:29

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 22 2008,11:22)
There are now at least 13 Telic Tards currently trying to pry their offended eyes from their sockets (well, as soon as they finish reading the smut and scrolling with the wrong hand evaluating the depravity of the enemy of Jesus).

< Thank you robin >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


35 and counting.  Boy are they thoroughly loving investigating the evils of
< The Lilith Obsession > and < Cinderella's Big Score >.

Really eating it up getting to understand the enemy of Jesus so they can pray for the conviction of JanieBelle's soul, I tell you.
Posted by: windy on June 23 2008,21:43

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 22 2008,10:22)
There are now at least 13 Telic Tards currently trying to pry their offended eyes from their sockets (well, as soon as they finish reading the smut and scrolling with the wrong hand evaluating the depravity of the enemy of Jesus).

< Thank you robin >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went over to TT to find the "smarter creationist" that was mentioned at the start of this thread. Guess how I feel now.

Although I think bringing up Salvador's antics might have been an unwise move, since now they are all "how can you be so petty, we would never!" But still, this was funny:

Mikegene:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not our fault that you think Salvador is more important and interesting than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


robin:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Am I entitled to conclude that you think Richard Dawkins is more important and interesting than science simply because there are so many non-science-related posts here dealing with his atheism, his personality, who he's 'slumming' with, and even whether he's sexy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Art on June 23 2008,23:15

< MikeGene >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since he did try to stir up a witch hunt against you, I suppose the ethical and fair thing to do is to allow you to question your accuser. I'll leave the thread open a little longer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The concept of a telic thinker behaving ethically boggles the mind.  (And ruins keyboards...)
Posted by: keiths on June 24 2008,19:24

I was robin (now banned).  Bannings at TT are silent affairs, because the mods are afraid of the reaction they'll get if they announce them.  In that respect they are even slimier than UD.

Anyway, this has to be one of my favorite moments from the thread:

< I asked Salvador >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think about the fact that only one person, out of the entire membership at TT — a pro-ID blog — was willing even to partially defend your tactics?

Has that sunk in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford, in an apparent effort to make Salvador feel better, < wrote this > in response:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, thanks, Bradford!
Posted by: keiths on June 24 2008,20:55

Cross-post from the UD thread:
Quote (keiths @ June 24 2008,20:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2008,15:43)
I must admit, UD has been poor entertainment of late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly true, which is why I started commenting at Telic Thoughts again (as 'robin').

In my brief tenure there (I've been banned), I mined a few good tard seams:

< ID and Morality >:
Watch as good, upstanding Christians defend the morality of Bible verses such as these:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Trained Microbes! >:
Joy gloats over a paper in Science:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I know I'm being smug here. I've had a bit of a rough spring out in the real world, so it feels pretty good to 'win' something for a change... So, Culture Warriors. What say you about this evidence of intelligent design in life and evolution? Is this science? Should the researchers be expelled from academia for heresy? Should the journal Science be taken to task and forced to issue a retraction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...until Raevmo and I point out what the paper actually says, and Joy stops gloating and decides that the authors are dogmatic Darwinists after all.

< Evidence and Truth >:
Mike Gene explains why evidence is overrated.

< Speak Your Mind >:
I accept the invitation and speak my mind regarding Salvador Cordova's behavior in the blogosphere, asking TTers whether they approve of it.  None of the ID supporters can bring themselves to express approval -- or disapproval.  Except for DaveScot, who says he disapproves of the quotemining but approves of the way Sal "bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone"!

To make Sal feel better, Bradford offers this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Long-time tardaholics know that it is good to have a back-up supply in case your primary source runs dry.  Telic Thoughts will never match the pure, uncut tard at UD, but it's better than withdrawal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 24 2008,21:01

Quote (windy @ June 23 2008,22:43)
Mikegene:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not our fault that you think Salvador is more important and interesting than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


robin:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Am I entitled to conclude that you think Richard Dawkins is more important and interesting than science simply because there are so many non-science-related posts here dealing with his atheism, his personality, who he's 'slumming' with, and even whether he's sexy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


A long time ago I learned that if I was about to swing a sword, I should check and make sure it wasn't double-edged.
Posted by: keiths on June 25 2008,11:03

At TT, Raevmo < asks >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
robin has been a bit quiet lately. (s)he didn't get banned did (s)he? I seem to recall Mike saying that he wouldn't do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mike Gene dislocates his spine trying to rationalize the banning:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, this is what I wrote on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW robin, I think it is rather obvious you are keiths. And pay attention to this – even though I think this, I don’t advocate that you be banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note the present tense.

At the time, I did not know he was keiths; I just believed it to be the case. And I did not say I wouldn’t ban keiths; I said that I did not advocate banning him at the time that I wrote that. And I clearly said “Pay attention to this.” In other words, keiths was being given a second chance. He was being allowed to post when he knew that we thought he was who he was. How would he react to this act of courtesy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on June 25 2008,11:21

Mike Gene is a true master of the double standard.

He excoriates me repeatedly for having posted < this >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then he posts this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone opposes the banning because you either approve of what he was trying to do in that thread or you think we are somehow obligated to tolerate such behavior, now is the time to go on record and say so in this open thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sort of have to admire his self-blindness; it saves him from what would otherwise be intolerable amounts of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: keiths on June 30 2008,22:04

Two and a half years ago, a Telic Thoughts contributor named "bipod" had < this advice > for his fellow ID proponents:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just Do It: 9 Pieces of Advice for the Next 3 Years

by bipod

This message is aimed at that minority of individuals who 1) acknowledge that Intelligent Design (ID) is immature as a scientific research program, 2) recognize that the current generation of intelligent design theorists have laid a unique foundation for exploring the biotic world, and 3) want to be participants (and possible failures) in the development of a telic science.

The next 3 years should prove to be pivotal for any prospective intelligent design research program. It really is time (er, has been time) to stop arguing about the scientific status of ID and to let history play itself out by conducting research and doing the hard work.

Just do it, as they say.

Here's some primitive guiding advice for the small minority.

1. Start small and be meticulous
2. Don't aim for "smoking-gun" results
3. Don't be afraid to make mistakes; take chances - speculate and imagine
4. Don't extrapolate wildly from the data and don't look for grandiose results
5. Explore the world with unfettered curiosity
6. Don't force the data into your model.
7. Ignore the buzzbots and cherish the true skeptics.
8. Resist the temptation to spectate.
9. Don't hold your breath for Mike Gene to publish a book;-)

This entry was posted on Friday, December 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am and is filed under Intelligent Design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's that project coming along, bipod?
Posted by: keiths on July 05 2008,02:57

Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'.  Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.

A recent < example >:
Quote (Rock @ June 30 2008, 3:12 PM)
Which reminds me–Does anyone know anything about the Hanoi Tower puzzle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Joy @ June 30 2008, 4:22 PM)
Yeah, used to 'play' it all the time with my toddlers and their plastic rainbow donut towers (which is what I call it, since I'm married to a Viet-era vet). Recursion. Which of course plays a role in deep time adaptation, but not so much in things like punk-eek. Sans directed mutation, that is, and while channeling also plays its role, there's not enough time there (apparently) for straight randomness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on July 05 2008,03:05

< Another choice example of blowtard > from Joy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I was working with Matti Pitkanen on an attempt to quantify an anomalous issue under his TGD model of consciousness, I was introduced to a whole "new math" that this subject probably deserves - much as gravity deserved calculus back when Leibniz and Newton were arguing the details. Needless to say, I wasn't very "up" on the technicalities, so tried to frame what I was being exposed to in terms my ancient QM training would allow.

It turned out to be slightly easier than grokking multiverses, but not by much. Matti's only got 8 dimensions to work with, which I think is probably better than 11, 22 or infinite [FWIW]. Penrose is still working in a 4-D manifold, which is a good place to start, though he does give some lip service per Nigel Cook in his latest tome to Matti's p-adic primes as a mathematical framework the world's just not ready for yet.

I had stubbornly insisted on equating Matti's multi-stage vector alignment for the extremal of consciousness as akin to the vector of a magnetic monopole. It was the only theoretically existent particle I knew of that would take more than one phase transition to align to 'reality', so my mind kept focusing on its hedgehog extremal vector. Recently Matti has indeed integrated magnetic field dynamics into his 20+-year project, and it's starting to almost make sense! Check his blog for incoming details.

JohnJoe McFadden had a pretty good EM field ubertheory for consciousness that would be deducible from both Penrose's dynamic and Matti's. Since neuronal biophysics does operate on electrical circuitry, and biophotons must of course generate an EM field that extends not only throughout the brain itself, but also extending exterior like an 'aura' around the biophysical body.

True, the world isn't ready for multi-sheeted 8-dimensional spacetimes, hierarchial 'selves' or even magnetic monopoles. Penrose, at the late end of a long and storied career, can risk censure because nobody would dare censure him. He's plowing the road, and some of Matti's students may just plant some seeds. For the subject of life and biological evolution, it's the PCCs and NCCs that count. And these are well on the way to quantification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,14:42

It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.  In a despicable and shameless comment, Bradford has even tried to reverse the tables on the situation (I shall refrain from linking to it).

In light of this, I have decided to publish the full, unedited correspondence between Guts and myself.  If you have the patience to read it, you will walk away with only one conclusion: he is a sleazeball.

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.  anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts.  My posts here do not mention Nelson.  Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.

[Two large posts to follow.]
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:15

Remember, at the beginning of this correspondence neither of us knew what the problem really was.  Normally I would remove the unnecessary quoting and other cruft, but I cannot risk any appearance that I have made editions.  The following is pristine and unedited.  Due to the 76800 character limit, I have split it into four parts (two should have sufficed, but the site was still dropping text).

Part 1:

Subject:
farewell -- The Design Matrix contact form
From:
Frostman <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:45 -0700
To:
furtive.clown@gmail.com

This message is for Mike Gene.

Happy vacation to you, and also a fond farewell.

As you may know, I have been banned from Telic Thoughts.  Though this may
not concern you, I have documented the banning here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >

Good luck with the book.







Subject:
farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:49:56 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, krauze_id@hotmail.com

Hello,

Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few Telic Thoughts
members who list their email address.  It's been fun.

Though you may have no interest in this, I have detailed my recent
banning from TT here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >

In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT thread in question:

< http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:09:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
sorry for not being impressed.  


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello,
> >
> > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
> > Telic Thoughts
> > members who list their email address.  It's been
> > fun.
> >
> > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
> > detailed my recent
> > banning from TT here:
> >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
> >
> > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
> > thread in question:
> >
> > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
> >
> > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
> > Frostman
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:14:43 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

By the way , your banishment is only temporary, it was
not approved by the majority of TTers, if you agree
from now on to respect the decisions of the various
blog authors, I might be able to get you back in.


--- Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a
> > 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.  
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >      
> >
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > < http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:57:01 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I found the panda's thumb section of antievolution.org after I was banned
while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find their email addresses.
The only reason I posted there was to have a record of the event to which I
could link.  You'll see that I registered there just before posting --- I've
never been one to hang around with those who agree with me, and it's not my
choir  :)

To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have already anticipated that
objection here

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >

As you know, the issue is not that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not moved to the memory hole,
contrary to TT policy.

As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately you are unable to judge
my position and my arguments, as my posts were deleted.  You only have a
record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.  Do you believe
Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his disregard for the deletion
policy hold any relevance to you?

Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT than non-ID members.  I
respond to as much as I can, and when that is not enough, I'll inevitably
hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring posts which "refute" mine.

Please forward to me any and all posts which, in your view, refute any of my
arguments.  I regret that you have been left with this impression.  However
you must cite the specific posts in question, otherwise your claims are
empty.

There is one case where I intentionally held off my responses.  In the "eyes
have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical mistake in reasoning
which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after eight times asking.
Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to his arguments while
focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those counterpoints.  I was
determined not to let that happen again, so I held off my responses.

Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue brought up by someone
else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk about that.  Bradford
escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away in the confusion of
irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to explain this in that thread.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:10:10 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is but that they were not
moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
explained to you what was happening with the deletions
(again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
told people to save comments because the memory hole
wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
I know everything that was ever posted.

Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
were acting like a baby.

So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I found the panda's thumb section of
> > antievolution.org after I was banned
> > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
> > their email addresses.
> > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
> > of the event to which I
> > could link.  You'll see that I registered there just
> > before posting --- I've
> > never been one to hang around with those who agree
> > with me, and it's not my
> > choir  :)
> >
> > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
> > already anticipated that
> > objection here
> >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
> >
> > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
> > deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
> > moved to the memory hole,
> > contrary to TT policy.
> >
> > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
> > you are unable to judge
> > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
> > deleted.  You only have a
> > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
> >  Do you believe
> > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
> > disregard for the deletion
> > policy hold any relevance to you?
> >
> > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
> > than non-ID members.  I
> > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
> > enough, I'll inevitably
> > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
> > posts which "refute" mine.
> >
> > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
> > your view, refute any of my
> > arguments.  I regret that you have been left with
> > this impression.  However
> > you must cite the specific posts in question,
> > otherwise your claims are
> > empty.
> >
> > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
> > responses.  In the "eyes
> > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
> > mistake in reasoning
> > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
> > eight times asking.
> > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
> > his arguments while
> > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
> > counterpoints.  I was
> > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
> > off my responses.
> >
> > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
> > brought up by someone
> > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
> > about that.  Bradford
> > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
> > in the confusion of
> > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
> > explain this in that thread.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
>> > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>> > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
>> > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>> > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>> > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>> > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
> > we
>> > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
> > a 4
>> > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
>> > > sorry for not being impressed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Hello,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
> > few
>>> > > > Telic Thoughts
>>> > > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>>> > > > fun.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>> > > > detailed my recent
>>> > > > banning from TT here:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
> > TT
>>> > > > thread in question:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:15:54 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I don't even understand what you are saying now.  Please bear with me.
Previously you said,

"You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you would
ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other threads as well, such as
the Fodor one)"

So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in your opinion, I ignored
posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't even make sense.  When did
I do that?  And when has such an opinion been sufficient grounds for
deletion?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you saying the memory hole
works for you, but not for Bradford?

I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is obviously something I'm
not understanding about the situation.

"So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer?"

I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree with Bradford's decision to
jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does TT have a deletion
policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I am just trying to
understand it.

Frostman


On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
> > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
> >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
> > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
> > explained to you what was happening with the deletions
> > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
> > told people to save comments because the memory hole
> > wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
> > I know everything that was ever posted.
> >
> > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
> > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
> > reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
> > were acting like a baby.
> >
> > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
> > your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
> > can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
> > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>> > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>> > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
>> > > their email addresses.
>> > > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
>> > > of the event to which I
>> > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there just
>> > > before posting --- I've
>> > > never been one to hang around with those who agree
>> > > with me, and it's not my
>> > > choir  :)
>> > >
>> > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>> > > already anticipated that
>> > > objection here
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
>> > >
>> > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>> > > deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
>> > > moved to the memory hole,
>> > > contrary to TT policy.
>> > >
>> > > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
>> > > you are unable to judge
>> > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>> > > deleted.  You only have a
>> > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
>> > >  Do you believe
>> > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>> > > disregard for the deletion
>> > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>> > >
>> > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
>> > > than non-ID members.  I
>> > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
>> > > enough, I'll inevitably
>> > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>> > > posts which "refute" mine.
>> > >
>> > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>> > > your view, refute any of my
>> > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left with
>> > > this impression.  However
>> > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>> > > otherwise your claims are
>> > > empty.
>> > >
>> > > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
>> > > responses.  In the "eyes
>> > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
>> > > mistake in reasoning
>> > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
>> > > eight times asking.
>> > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
>> > > his arguments while
>> > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
>> > > counterpoints.  I was
>> > > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
>> > > off my responses.
>> > >
>> > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
>> > > brought up by someone
>> > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
>> > > about that.  Bradford
>> > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
>> > > in the confusion of
>> > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>> > > explain this in that thread.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
>> > > had
>>> > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>>> > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>> > > continued
>>> > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>>> > > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>>> > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>>> > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
>> > > we
>>> > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
>> > > a 4
>>> > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
>> > > choir,
>>> > > > sorry for not being impressed.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hello,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
>> > > few
>>>> > > > > Telic Thoughts
>>>> > > > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>>>> > > > > fun.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>>> > > > > detailed my recent
>>>> > > > > banning from TT here:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
>> > > TT
>>>> > > > > thread in question:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>>> > > > > Frostman
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a better pen pal.
> > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> > < http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:23:52 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Wow. These are simple points:


- There was NO jettison of any policy, the website
recently moved servers, which broke the Memory Hole
function, it didn't work for anyone. I instructed
everyone to delete offending comments and save them
for manual insertion of the memory hole.

- This completely refutes any assertion that your
posts were deleted due to unethical behavior or to
circumvent TT policy.

- You were banned because despite constant and patient
requests for you to stop, you continued like a spoiled
brat.

You say you don't understand my offer but then you ask
completely irrelevant questions. Note, I will make a
note of this publically if you once again ignore my
offer.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't
> > even make sense.  When did
> > I do that?  And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir  :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted.  You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > >  Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members.  I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression.  However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses.  In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints.  I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that.  Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:46:38 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I can understand how one would misunderstand
the first point, which is one of the reasons I'm
giving you this opportunity to come back (with
stipulations), it's not like you understand how
internal functions work, and we should have announced
this when it actually broke. So nix my last statement.






--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't
> > even make sense.  When did
> > I do that?  And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir  :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted.  You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > >  Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members.  I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression.  However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses.  In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints.  I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that.  Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:16

Part 2:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:14:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

OK we may be getting closer to understanding each other.  Again I pledge
that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume you are doing likewise.

This was the series of observations which upon which I drew my conclusions:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.
- You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's working now.
- I see two posts by you which say "test" and "test2" in them memory hole.
This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as your tests presumably
confirmed it to for you.
- Afterward, several of my posts which defend my position on the Davies
quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear,
without going to the memory hole.
- I ask if the memory hole is really working.
- Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine.
:grin:"
- I notice the last post in which I so asked is moved to the memory hole.
This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the memory hole is
working.
- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position on
the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.
- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.
- I inquire again about these deletions.  Those inquiries are deleted.
- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is deleted.
- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)
questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without being
moved to the memory hole.
- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, with
all of my responses to those claims deleted.

In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me, it appeared that you
were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to delete posts permanently,
without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you weren't really asking that,
I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase "don't understand" like
ten times.

Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the decision I am asked to
respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am just dumbfounded.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:28:45 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I thought you were playing dumb, which is
why my last few e-mails were rather aggressive, for
which I apologize deeply. I completely see how you are
confused and feel like you have been done an
injustice, for which again I apologize. But I can
assure you that everything that happened was a huge
misunderstanding. Let me see if I can make the series
of events clear to you, by quoting each of your
points:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.

This is when the Memory Hole was not working, he
deleted because he was following my instructions, I
told all the bloggers to save a copy of any offending
comments and send them to me. In hindsight, this was
bad advice because of the impression it gave.

- Afterward, several of my posts which defend position
on the Davies quote and defend my position on
"non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear, without going
to the memory hole.

This was all me. I deleted them, as I said in the
thread, because I was reacting to what I saw as an
attempted circumvention of Bradford's initial decision
(I called it whining), that is, Bradford only deleted
1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the
rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile
reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I
apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the
deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were
my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile
attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his
decision. Really you just felt that your posts were
unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at
that as well.

Let me give you an idea of my thinking here. Our
policy is to move a comment to the memory hole, but
you can understand the frustration if someone takes
that comment, and reposts it *again* in the thread.
This is what I perceived as happening. However you had
no way of knowing that the memory hole was not
working, and my instructions to the crew, so I see now
that this was all just a really bad misunderstanding,
and it's completely my fault. I usually delete posts
as a deterent, if you attempt to circumvent the
decision of the blogger, you will see that you have
wasted your time, kind of deal, I hope you can
understand.

So like I said, you were not banned as a result of a
vote, which is usually how TT decides to ban people.
So I have no problem with you comming back. You also
understand though, that if a blogger asks you to stop
commenting in their thread, you should respect that.
If you see a comment of yours moved to the memory
hole, don't try to re-summarize it in an attempt to
restore it to the thread. I'm sure you aware of all
this I'm just letting you know so that this whole
schmiel doesn't happen again.

I will be more careful in the future with that delete
button. So, if we understand eachother now, I'll be
more than happy to lift your ban.





--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK we may be getting closer to understanding each
> > other.  Again I pledge
> > that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume
> > you are doing likewise.
> >
> > This was the series of observations which upon which
> > I drew my conclusions:
> >
> > - A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
> > - Bradford says he deleted it.
> > - You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's
> > working now.
> > - I see two posts by you which say "test" and
> > "test2" in them memory hole.
> > This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as
> > your tests presumably
> > confirmed it to for you.
> > - Afterward, several of my posts which defend my
> > position on the Davies
> > quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs
> > "anti-theism" disappear,
> > without going to the memory hole.
> > - I ask if the memory hole is really working.
> > - Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The
> > memory hole works fine.
> > :grin:"
> > - I notice the last post in which I so asked is
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> > the memory hole is
> > working.
> > - Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I
> > defend my position on
> > the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational,
> > on-topic post.
> > - That post is deleted, without going to the memory
> > hole.
> > - I inquire again about these deletions.  Those
> > inquiries are deleted.
> > - Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is
> > deleted.
> > - Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my
> > position, or (2)
> > questions these deletions in light of the policy, is
> > deleted without being
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > - The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh
> > claims against me, with
> > all of my responses to those claims deleted.
> >
> > In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me,
> > it appeared that you
> > were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to
> > delete posts permanently,
> > without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you
> > weren't really asking that,
> > I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase
> > "don't understand" like
> > ten times.
> >
> > Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the
> > decision I am asked to
> > respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am
> > just dumbfounded.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:00:34 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know how easily
misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.  Normally at this point I
would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would both have a laugh at
the confluence of coincidences which brought about the misunderstanding.

But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't been made on TT
explaining the situation.  You continue to stand mute in the face of all the
derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took place in the aftermath of
our ban.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:00:28 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I feel that this is justified given your false charge
of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
apologized for.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
> > how easily
> > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
> > Normally at this point I
> > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
> > both have a laugh at
> > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
> > the misunderstanding.
> >
> > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT
> > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
> > mute in the face of all the
> > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
> > place in the aftermath of
> > our ban.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:23:24 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so quickly.  When I
pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I would assume you were
also, it appeared that we at last discovered the misunderstanding at root in
these events.

Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly viewed as a pariah again, for
some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in good faith, you
assume.  There is little I can do once that assumption is made, however I
will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.

On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was
clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would
agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing
"most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true..."

The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the final three-sentence
paragraph of his editorial?

In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides both are wrong, and says
something entirely antithetical in the third sentence.  He forgets to delete
the first two sentences on his word processor, a mistake which goes
unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New York Times.

In the second scenario, he writes the three disparate sentences
intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final paragraph as a whole is
meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is destroyed when just the
final sentence is taken without the preceding two.

Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is certainly no theist.
What are the chances that he meant his final paragraph to be used in the way
Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.

Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I still can't fathom how),
that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined an entirely reasonable
and rational position, and I expect all or most non-ID folks would agree
with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational discussion were people are
free to disagree, or not?

Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You have done several things
which were outright wrong, and you have apologized for them (thank you).
Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My posts were not saved, and
they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts outlined my position on
the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting those posts permanently,
you denied me the chance to defend myself against Bradford's accusations.

And now I am required to defend my position again.  Actually you did not ask
for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my position!  Moreover, my
renouncement is being held as a precondition for *you* to admit the mistakes
*you* made!

I am astonished.

On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I feel that this is justified given your false charge
> > of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
> > apologized for.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
>> > > how easily
>> > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>> > > Normally at this point I
>> > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
>> > > both have a laugh at
>> > > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
>> > > the misunderstanding.
>> > >
>> > > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT
>> > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>> > > mute in the face of all the
>> > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>> > > place in the aftermath of
>> > > our ban.
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:07:53 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
at all.

But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
him of taking the quote out of context was
inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.

Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
Bradford before returning.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hi Frostman,

I am going to be very busy for the rest of the day,
but I'll have a chance to post your apology later this
evening, you can just send it to me whenever your
ready, no need to do it in Word, just as an e-mail
message is fine.

In the blog, I'll also include my apology to you, and
explaining the situation and then everything should be
ok.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear with me again.  Again, I
am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I pledge once more that I am
acting in good faith.

I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been explained thoroughly
enough.  I also hope that, even though you may disagree with it, you see it
is as a position someone could take (albeit erroneously).  I know that
others agree with me.

It is my understanding that participants at Telic Thoughts are allowed to
disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago if this was not the
case, as would a slew of others.

You and Bradford disagree with my position on the Davies quote.  That is
fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get somewhere, but that is
not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that we should be allowed to
disagree.

Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my position.  It appears that I
am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement offends Bradford.  Surely
you can't mean that, so what do you mean?

It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of context!"  That certainly
would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.  Look at my post --- it
merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."

Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are quoted out of context on
Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny fraction of bloggers
actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no accusations of malicious
intent.

As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling that I am being asked
to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my renouncement in order
to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging those mistakes that you
have heretofore only privately acknowledged.

I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but I am still fumbling
around trying to understand your position.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
> > you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
> > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
> > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
> > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
> > at all.
> >
> > But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
> > him of taking the quote out of context was
> > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
> >
> > Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
> > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
> > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
> > Bradford before returning.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
>> > > quickly.  When I
>> > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
>> > > would assume you were
>> > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>> > > misunderstanding at root in
>> > > these events.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>> > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>> > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
>> > > good faith, you
>> > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>> > > assumption is made, however I
>> > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>> > >
>> > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
>> > > the Davies quote was
>> > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>> > > "anti-theists" alike would
>> > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>> > > clipped. There is nothing
>> > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
>> > > true..."
>> > >
>> > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>> > > final three-sentence
>> > > paragraph of his editorial?
>> > >
>> > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
>> > > both are wrong, and says
>> > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>> > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>> > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>> > > mistake which goes
>> > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
>> > > York Times.
>> > >
>> > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>> > > disparate sentences
>> > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
>> > > paragraph as a whole is
>> > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
>> > > destroyed when just the
>> > > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
>> > >
>> > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
>> > > certainly no theist.
>> > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>> > > paragraph to be used in the way
>> > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>> > >
>> > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
>> > > still can't fathom how),
>> > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
>> > > an entirely reasonable
>> > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>> > > non-ID folks would agree
>> > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>> > > discussion were people are
>> > > free to disagree, or not?
>> > >
>> > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
>> > > have done several things
>> > > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
>> > > for them (thank you).
>> > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>> > > posts were not saved, and
>> > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
>> > > outlined my position on
>> > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>> > > those posts permanently,
>> > > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
>> > > Bradford's accusations.
>> > >
>> > > And now I am required to defend my position again.
>> > > Actually you did not ask
>> > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>> > > position!  Moreover, my
>> > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>> > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>> > > *you* made!
>> > >
>> > > I am astonished.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > > charge
>>> > > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
>> > > yet
>>> > > > apologized for.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
>> > > know
>>>> > > > > how easily
>>>> > > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>>> > > > > Normally at this point I
>>>> > > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
>> > > would
>>>> > > > > both have a laugh at
>>>> > > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
>> > > about
>>>> > > > > the misunderstanding.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
>> > > hasn't
>>>> > > > > been made on TT
>>>> > > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>>> > > > > mute in the face of all the
>>>> > > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>>> > > > > place in the aftermath of
>>>> > > > > our ban.
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:17

Part 3:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:37:23 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
to do about the broken memory hole).

For future reference, perhaps understanding that
telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
with various phrases from the Talmud.

Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
one sentence.

So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
least for using sloppy language and then accusing
Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
language). It would go a long way in putting this
situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
a civil manner.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
> > with me again.  Again, I
> > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
> > pledge once more that I am
> > acting in good faith.
> >
> > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
> > explained thoroughly
> > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
> > disagree with it, you see it
> > is as a position someone could take (albeit
> > erroneously).  I know that
> > others agree with me.
> >
> > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
> > Thoughts are allowed to
> > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
> > if this was not the
> > case, as would a slew of others.
> >
> > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
> > Davies quote.  That is
> > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
> > somewhere, but that is
> > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
> > we should be allowed to
> > disagree.
> >
> > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
> > position.  It appears that I
> > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
> > offends Bradford.  Surely
> > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
> >
> > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
> > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
> > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
> > context!"  That certainly
> > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
> > Look at my post --- it
> > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
> >
> > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
> > quoted out of context on
> > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
> > fraction of bloggers
> > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
> > accusations of malicious
> > intent.
> >
> > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
> > that I am being asked
> > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
> > renouncement in order
> > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
> > those mistakes that you
> > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
> >
> > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
> > I am still fumbling
> > around trying to understand your position.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
> > debate,
>> > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
> > of
>> > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
> > the
>> > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>> > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
> > if
>> > > at all.
>> > >
>> > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
> > Accusing
>> > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>> > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>> > >
>> > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
> > along, I
>> > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
> > yet
>> > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
> > to
>> > > Bradford before returning.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
> > again so
>>> > > > quickly.  When I
>>> > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
> > that I
>>> > > > would assume you were
>>> > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>> > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>> > > > these events.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>> > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>> > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
> > acting in
>>> > > > good faith, you
>>> > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>> > > > assumption is made, however I
>>> > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
> > that
>>> > > > the Davies quote was
>>> > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>> > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>> > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>> > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>> > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
> > contrary is
>>> > > > true..."
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>> > > > final three-sentence
>>> > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
> > decides
>>> > > > both are wrong, and says
>>> > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>> > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>> > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>> > > > mistake which goes
>>> > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
> > New
>>> > > > York Times.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>> > > > disparate sentences
>>> > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
> > final
>>> > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>> > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
> > is
>>> > > > destroyed when just the
>>> > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
> > two.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
> > is
>>> > > > certainly no theist.
>>> > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>> > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>> > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
> > sorry I
>>> > > > still can't fathom how),
>>> > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
> > outlined
>>> > > > an entirely reasonable
>>> > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>> > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>> > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>> > > > discussion were people are
>>> > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
> > You
>>> > > > have done several things
>>> > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
> > apologized
>>> > > > for them (thank you).
>>> > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>> > > > posts were not saved, and
>>> > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
> > posts
>>> > > > outlined my position on
>>> > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>> > > > those posts permanently,
>>> > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
> > against
>>> > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And now I am required to defend my position
> > again.
>>> > > > Actually you did not ask
>>> > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>> > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>> > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>> > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>> > > > *you* made!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I am astonished.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> >
=== message truncated ===



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:55:17 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies quote again.  In short, I
believe it was a mistake to use only the final sentence of that
three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part of any quoting is to be
faithful to the author's intention.  As you said, Bradford was not talking
about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by definition an out of context
quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You have reinforced my
position on this.

Calling attention to an out of context quote is not inherently offensive or
derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more often than you believe
it does --- and the reason for it happening is well-known.  It does not
involve malicious intent.

All you have to do is put yourself in the position of the blogger.  Imagine
you are reading an article, and a particular sentence or passage gives you a
jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is possible that you may not
take the surrounding text sufficiently into account --- you just love that
passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.  And in your focusing, you
may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing conniving about it.
It's just part of the package of human emotions, which is our greatest
asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead us into logical troubles.

This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally be taken out of
context, but you see the gist of it.

And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed once again!

This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a digression from the original
issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is the number one issue.
My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of which I
have no concern at the moment.

When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you wrote a very contrite email
to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am grateful that we both stuck
it out long enough to figure out what really happened.  That in itself may
be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a little less tolerant, one
party may have stomped away, and the problem would be left unsolved.

The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It took genuine honor to
write that email, but there was no public display of that honor.  I waited
for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear on the TT thread, but
none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a false impression of my
actions there.  And they still do.  With all the dignity you showed in your
email, you could not muster the strength to clear my name.

And then came the email which bowled me over: that you would disclose the
misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon certain conditions which
I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return you will admit your
mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the unintentional consequence of
wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that, and we both know what it
is.

It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is to tell a lie.  You want
me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a position which I firmly
believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended this position.
(Remember, my position is that the quote is simply out of context, not that
Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow that, I would be lying.

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
> > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
> > out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
> > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
> > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
> > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
> > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
> > should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
> > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
> > to do about the broken memory hole).
> >
> > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
> > telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
> > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
> > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
> > selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
> > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
> > with various phrases from the Talmud.
> >
> > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
> > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
> > reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
> > one sentence.
> >
> > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
> > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
> > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
> > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
> > language). It would go a long way in putting this
> > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
> > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
> > rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
> > a civil manner.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
>> > > with me again.  Again, I
>> > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
>> > > pledge once more that I am
>> > > acting in good faith.
>> > >
>> > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
>> > > explained thoroughly
>> > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>> > > disagree with it, you see it
>> > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>> > > erroneously).  I know that
>> > > others agree with me.
>> > >
>> > > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
>> > > Thoughts are allowed to
>> > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
>> > > if this was not the
>> > > case, as would a slew of others.
>> > >
>> > > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
>> > > Davies quote.  That is
>> > > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
>> > > somewhere, but that is
>> > > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
>> > > we should be allowed to
>> > > disagree.
>> > >
>> > > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
>> > > position.  It appears that I
>> > > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
>> > > offends Bradford.  Surely
>> > > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
>> > >
>> > > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
>> > > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
>> > > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
>> > > context!"  That certainly
>> > > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
>> > > Look at my post --- it
>> > > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
>> > >
>> > > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
>> > > quoted out of context on
>> > > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
>> > > fraction of bloggers
>> > > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
>> > > accusations of malicious
>> > > intent.
>> > >
>> > > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
>> > > that I am being asked
>> > > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
>> > > renouncement in order
>> > > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
>> > > those mistakes that you
>> > > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
>> > >
>> > > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
>> > > I am still fumbling
>> > > around trying to understand your position.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
>> > > debate,
>>> > > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
>> > > of
>>> > > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
>> > > the
>>> > > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>>> > > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
>> > > if
>>> > > > at all.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
>> > > Accusing
>>> > > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>>> > > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
>> > > along, I
>>> > > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
>> > > yet
>>> > > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
>> > > to
>>> > > > Bradford before returning.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
>> > > again so
>>>> > > > > quickly.  When I
>>>> > > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
>> > > that I
>>>> > > > > would assume you were
>>>> > > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>>> > > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>>> > > > > these events.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>>> > > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>>> > > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
>> > > acting in
>>>> > > > > good faith, you
>>>> > > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>>> > > > > assumption is made, however I
>>>> > > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
>> > > that
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote was
>>>> > > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>>> > > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>>> > > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>>> > > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>>> > > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
>> > > contrary is
>>>> > > > > true..."
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>>> > > > > final three-sentence
>>>> > > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
>> > > decides
>>>> > > > > both are wrong, and says
>>>> > > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>>> > > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>>> > > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>>> > > > > mistake which goes
>>>> > > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
>> > > New
>>>> > > > > York Times.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>>> > > > > disparate sentences
>>>> > > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
>> > > final
>>>> > > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>>> > > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > destroyed when just the
>>>> > > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
>> > > two.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > certainly no theist.
>>>> > > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>>> > > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>>> > > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
>> > > sorry I
>>>> > > > > still can't fathom how),
>>>> > > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
>> > > outlined
>>>> > > > > an entirely reasonable
>>>> > > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>>> > > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>>> > > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>>> > > > > discussion were people are
>>>> > > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
>> > > You
>>>> > > > > have done several things
>>>> > > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
>> > > apologized
>>>> > > > > for them (thank you).
>>>> > > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>>> > > > > posts were not saved, and
>>>> > > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
>> > > posts
>>>> > > > > outlined my position on
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>>> > > > > those posts permanently,
>>>> > > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
>> > > against
>>>> > > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > And now I am required to defend my position
>> > > again.
>>>> > > > > Actually you did not ask
>>>> > > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>>> > > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>>> > > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>>> > > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>>> > > > > *you* made!
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I am astonished.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>>> > > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> > < http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:16:32 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hello again Frostman,

Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
That the last sentence in question makes atheists
uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
in that none of the critics that have been confronted
with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
context).

You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
either way, which means you are willing to do it again
even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.

So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.

Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.

Sincerely,
Guts


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
> > quote again.  In short, I
> > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
> > sentence of that
> > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
> > of any quoting is to be
> > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
> > Bradford was not talking
> > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
> > definition an out of context
> > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
> > have reinforced my
> > position on this.
> >
> > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
> > inherently offensive or
> > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
> > often than you believe
> > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
> > well-known.  It does not
> > involve malicious intent.
> >
> > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
> > of the blogger.  Imagine
> > you are reading an article, and a particular
> > sentence or passage gives you a
> > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
> > possible that you may not
> > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
> > --- you just love that
> > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
> > And in your focusing, you
> > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
> > conniving about it.
> > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
> > which is our greatest
> > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
> > us into logical troubles.
> >
> > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
> > be taken out of
> > context, but you see the gist of it.
> >
> > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
> > once again!
> >
> > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
> > digression from the original
> > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
> > that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
> > the number one issue.
> > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
> > separate issue, of which I
> > have no concern at the moment.
> >
> > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
> > wrote a very contrite email
> > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
> > grateful that we both stuck
> > it out long enough to figure out what really
> > happened.  That in itself may
> > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
> > little less tolerant, one
> > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
> > be left unsolved.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
> > took genuine honor to
> > write that email, but there was no public display of
> > that honor.  I waited
> > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
> > on the TT thread, but
> > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
> > false impression of my
> > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
> > dignity you showed in your
> > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
> > name.
> >
> > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
> > you would disclose the
> > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
> > certain conditions which
> > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
> > you will admit your
> > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
> > unintentional consequence of
> > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
> > and we both know what it
> > is.
> >
> > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
> > to tell a lie.  You want
> > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
> > position which I firmly
> > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
> > this position.
> > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
> > out of context, not that
> > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
> > that, I would be lying.
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>> > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
> > quote
>> > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
> > be
>> > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
> > quotes
>> > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
> >  If
>> > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
> > can
>> > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>> > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
> > (as I
>> > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
> > what
>> > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>> > >
>> > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>> > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
> > of
>> > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
> > not
>> > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>> > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
> > alter
>> > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
> > it
>> > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>> > >
>> > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
> > to
>> > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>> > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
> > the
>> > > one sentence.
>> > >
>> > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>> > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>> > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
> > because he
>> > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>> > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>> > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>> > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>> > > rationally disagree but still engage with
> > eachother in
>> > > a civil manner.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
> > bear
>>> > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>> > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
> > I
>>> > > > pledge once more that I am
>>> > > > acting in good faith.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
> > been
>>> > > > explained thoroughly
>>> > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>> > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>> > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>> > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>> > > > others agree with me.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It is my understanding that participants at
> > Telic
>>> > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>> > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
> > ago
>>> > > > if this was not the
>>> > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>> > > >
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:17

Part 4:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:03:25 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

You have misunderstood.  In my last email I made clear, or I thought I made
clear, that I am unconcerned about the state of my banning.  That's not the
issue here.

The issue is that you have not done the right thing by publicly explaining
the mistakes you made to those at TT, and the unfortunate consequences of
those mistakes.  Like I said in my last email, "This is the number one
issue.  My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of
which I have no concern at the moment."

Previously you said to me, among other things, "...I deleted the rest
because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's
initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of
the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because
of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to
circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly
deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well."

Why would you continue to hold that information to yourself?  When you
realized the misunderstanding, why didn't you rush to correct it?  Why have
you still not corrected it?  You may not like me, but obviously that is no
excuse.  We both know what is right and what is wrong here.  Why have you
not done the right thing?

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:16 AM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hello again Frostman,
> >
> > Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
> > That the last sentence in question makes atheists
> > uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
> > in that none of the critics that have been confronted
> > with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
> > context).
> >
> > You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
> > someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
> > either way, which means you are willing to do it again
> > even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.
> >
> > So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
> > Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.
> >
> > Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
> > because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
> > hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
> > Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
> > this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Guts
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
>> > > quote again.  In short, I
>> > > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
>> > > sentence of that
>> > > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
>> > > of any quoting is to be
>> > > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
>> > > Bradford was not talking
>> > > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
>> > > definition an out of context
>> > > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
>> > > have reinforced my
>> > > position on this.
>> > >
>> > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
>> > > inherently offensive or
>> > > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
>> > > often than you believe
>> > > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
>> > > well-known.  It does not
>> > > involve malicious intent.
>> > >
>> > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
>> > > of the blogger.  Imagine
>> > > you are reading an article, and a particular
>> > > sentence or passage gives you a
>> > > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
>> > > possible that you may not
>> > > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
>> > > --- you just love that
>> > > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
>> > > And in your focusing, you
>> > > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
>> > > conniving about it.
>> > > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
>> > > which is our greatest
>> > > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
>> > > us into logical troubles.
>> > >
>> > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
>> > > be taken out of
>> > > context, but you see the gist of it.
>> > >
>> > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
>> > > once again!
>> > >
>> > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
>> > > digression from the original
>> > > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
>> > > that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
>> > > the number one issue.
>> > > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
>> > > separate issue, of which I
>> > > have no concern at the moment.
>> > >
>> > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
>> > > wrote a very contrite email
>> > > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
>> > > grateful that we both stuck
>> > > it out long enough to figure out what really
>> > > happened.  That in itself may
>> > > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
>> > > little less tolerant, one
>> > > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
>> > > be left unsolved.
>> > >
>> > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
>> > > took genuine honor to
>> > > write that email, but there was no public display of
>> > > that honor.  I waited
>> > > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
>> > > on the TT thread, but
>> > > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
>> > > false impression of my
>> > > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
>> > > dignity you showed in your
>> > > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
>> > > name.
>> > >
>> > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
>> > > you would disclose the
>> > > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
>> > > certain conditions which
>> > > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
>> > > you will admit your
>> > > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
>> > > unintentional consequence of
>> > > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
>> > > and we both know what it
>> > > is.
>> > >
>> > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
>> > > to tell a lie.  You want
>> > > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
>> > > position which I firmly
>> > > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
>> > > this position.
>> > > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
>> > > out of context, not that
>> > > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
>> > > that, I would be lying.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
>> > > What is stopping you from
>> > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
>> > > it contingent upon *my*
>> > > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
>> > > Davies quote is totally
>> > > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
>> > > right thing.
>> > >
>> > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
>> > > situation.  Why am I
>> > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
>> > > right thing?  Why don't
>> > > you just do it?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>>> > > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
>> > > quote
>>> > > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
>> > > be
>>> > > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
>> > > quotes
>>> > > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
>> > >  If
>>> > > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
>> > > can
>>> > > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>>> > > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
>> > > (as I
>>> > > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
>> > > what
>>> > > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>>> > > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
>> > > of
>>> > > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
>> > > not
>>> > > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>>> > > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
>> > > alter
>>> > > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
>> > > it
>>> > > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
>> > > to
>>> > > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>>> > > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>>> > > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
>> > > the
>>> > > > one sentence.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>>> > > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>>> > > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
>> > > because he
>>> > > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>>> > > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>>> > > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>>> > > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>>> > > > rationally disagree but still engage with
>> > > eachother in
>>> > > > a civil manner.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
>> > > bear
>>>> > > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>>> > > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
>> > > I
>>>> > > > > pledge once more that I am
>>>> > > > > acting in good faith.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
>> > > been
>>>> > > > > explained thoroughly
>>>> > > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>>> > > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>>> > > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>>> > > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>>> > > > > others agree with me.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > It is my understanding that participants at
>> > > Telic
>>>> > > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>>> > > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
>> > > ago
>>>> > > > > if this was not the
>>>> > > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>>> > > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:28 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

Though you have not answered yet (been very little time), I feel obligated
to address what I suspect your response will be.

You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, and then I will do the
right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused this misunderstanding at
TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from
doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task alone: to candidly say
publicly what you have candidly said to me privately.

I regret to simply restate what I said in my penultimate (I love that word!)
email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored it:

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Sincerely,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:57:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
although there were many insults flung at TT, they
moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
you won't protest that).

Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
occured. However, the fact remains that your
accusation of out of context quotation was
inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
it.



--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:01:41 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually one last thing,

The offer still stands as to lifting your ban. You can
send me an apology to Bradford, which I will post as a
Blog Entry, along with my apology to you. I think two
paragraphs is enough.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:23 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

This is an ethical question for you to ponder on your own time.  You have
wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not set the record straight
in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.  You know what is right,
and you know that you have not done what is right.  It's really that simple.

You have already agreed with me that the Davies quote was taken out of
context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not talking about Davies'
intended meaning."  The most important part of any quoting is to be faithful
to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that simple.

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
> > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
> > publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
> > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
> > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
> > you won't protest that).
> >
> > Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
> > what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
> > occured. However, the fact remains that your
> > accusation of out of context quotation was
> > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
> > it.
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:55:46 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
make where I do it.

I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
context, I said your position that it was taken out of
context was irrational.

I've wasted enough time with you.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
> > your own time.  You have
> > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
> > set the record straight
> > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
> > You know what is right,
> > and you know that you have not done what is right.
> > It's really that simple.
> >
> > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
> > quote was taken out of
> > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies'
> > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
> > quoting is to be faithful
> > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
> > simple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
> > First,
>> > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>> > > publically, check out your thread on AE
> > (ironically,
>> > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>> > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
> > bet
>> > > you won't protest that).
>> > >
>> > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
> > explained
>> > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
> > had
>> > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>> > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>> > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
> > Thats
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:07 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

It makes a difference because the persons you inform of the wrongdoing
should be the same persons who witnessed the wrongdoing.  TT readers should
be informed, not AE readers.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
> > make where I do it.
> >
> > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
> > context, I said your position that it was taken out of
> > context was irrational.
> >
> > I've wasted enough time with you.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>> > > your own time.  You have
>> > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
>> > > set the record straight
>> > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
>> > > You know what is right,
>> > > and you know that you have not done what is right.
>> > > It's really that simple.
>> > >
>> > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>> > > quote was taken out of
>> > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies'
>> > > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
>> > > quoting is to be faithful
>> > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
>> > > simple.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>> > > First,
>>> > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>> > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>> > > (ironically,
>>> > > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>>> > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
>> > > bet
>>> > > > you won't protest that).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>> > > explained
>>> > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
>> > > had
>>> > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>> > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>> > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>> > > Thats
>>> > > > it.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:36:24 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
what truly occured. All is well.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It makes a difference because the persons you inform
> > of the wrongdoing
> > should be the same persons who witnessed the
> > wrongdoing.  TT readers should
> > be informed, not AE readers.
> >
> > Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to
> > the ethical obligation
> > in front of you.  You require nothing from me in
> > order to fulfill that
> > obligation.
> >
> > You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you
> > will not do it.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does
> > it
>> > > make where I do it.
>> > >
>> > > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
>> > > context, I said your position that it was taken
> > out of
>> > > context was irrational.
>> > >
>> > > I've wasted enough time with you.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>>> > > > your own time.  You have
>>> > > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will
> > not
>>> > > > set the record straight
>>> > > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing
> > occurred.
>>> > > > You know what is right,
>>> > > > and you know that you have not done what is
> > right.
>>> > > > It's really that simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>>> > > > quote was taken out of
>>> > > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was
> > not
>>> > > > talking about Davies'
>>> > > > intended meaning."  The most important part of
> > any
>>> > > > quoting is to be faithful
>>> > > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really
> > that
>>> > > > simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>>> > > > First,
>>>> > > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>>> > > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>>> > > > (ironically,
>>>> > > > > although there were many insults flung at TT,
> > they
>>>> > > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but
> > I
>>> > > > bet
>>>> > > > > you won't protest that).
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>>> > > > explained
>>>> > > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating
> > what
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>>> > > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>>> > > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>>> > > > Thats
>>>> > > > > it.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:15:53 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers
may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell
them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
> > in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
> > reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
> > what truly occured. All is well.
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:49:34 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, nucacids@wowway.com

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=86519 >

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:52:15 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my
banishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >


My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
me.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular
quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context.  This
view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a
free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not support
such a free exchange.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:21:31 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hello Mike,

Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts
can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.

With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.

Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I am
prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you may
read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This will
provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.

That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
significant.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120 >

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding
> > my banishment from TT.
> >
> > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
> > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
> > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
> > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
> > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
> > however.
> >
> > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >
> >
> >
> > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
> > me.
> >
> > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
> > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
> > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
> > my banning.
> >
> > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of
> > a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
> > support such a free exchange.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 04:39:51 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Still no comment?  Curious  :)

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466 >

On Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic
> > Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.
> >
> > With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
> > open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
> > previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.
> >
> > Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I
> > am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you
> > may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This
> > will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.
> >
> > That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
> > significant.
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120 >
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hi Mike,
>> > >
>> > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions
>> > > surrounding my banishment from TT.
>> > >
>> > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
>> > > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
>> > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
>> > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
>> > > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
>> > > however.
>> > >
>> > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has
>> > > told me.
>> > >
>> > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
>> > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
>> > > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
>> > > my banning.
>> > >
>> > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit
>> > > of a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
>> > > support such a free exchange.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:16:42 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Perhaps it will be easier if I simply ask you a direct question:

Guts offered to lift my ban if, in exchange, I would renounce my position
that a certain quote which appeared on TT was taken out of context.

Do you believe Guts' behavior here is ethical?

And do you want Telic Thoughts to be the sort of place where particular
rational positions are not allowed to be expressed?

As I have mentioned, I am prepared to give you this email account so that
you may view the correspondence with Guts yourself.

You have a clear ethical problem in front of you.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:57:39 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com

Checkmate.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466 >

Regards,
Frostman
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,15:48

Quote (keiths @ July 05 2008,03:57)
Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'.  Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The thing I noticed about Joy is her tendency to proclaim victory. In her imaginary world, materialism is over, ID was a success, etc. Really twisted, the way she lies to herself.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 05 2008,16:12

I think I've been in online discussions with Nelson Alonso since about 1997, and met him in person in 2002 at the AMNH IDC debate event. I'm not surprised.
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,17:04

Holy crap:

< http://www.amazon.com/Design-....&sr=1-1 >

The Design Matrix, by Mike Gene:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Paperback: 316 pages
# Publisher: Arbor Vitae Press; 1st edition (November 30, 2007)

# Amazon.com Sales Rank: #322,907 in Books
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody is reading Mike Gene's book. It makes The Edge of Evolution look like a best seller.

My faith in humanity just went up a notch.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 05 2008,17:35

Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 05 2008,17:39

What's up with Allen MacNeill?  Or is this old news?  From the < "apology thread" > at TT  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Allen_MacNeill Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am

If I may chime in, I learned long ago (from my mentor, Will Provine) that one has two responsibilities when considering the kinds of questions posed here: never to attack the person making assertions with which one disagrees, and always to attack their assertions, with all the evidence and vigor at one's disposal. This, to me, is the primary ethic of the academy: we cherish those with whom we disagree, for in our disagreement we both come to clarity about our own attitudes, beliefs, positions, and understanding.

This is precisely why Will and I always invite people with whom we disagree to make presentations and stand for questions in our evolution courses at Cornell. In many cases our students become even more confirmed in their opposition to the ideas presented by such presenters, as a result of formulating their own telling questions and following up on the answers. And, of course, sometimes the presenters surprise us all, and our own positions must be modified as a result.

Hence, my deep regard for the folks here (and my general disdain for the average commentators at both Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb). May a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 05 2008,17:50

I disagree with MacNeill that one should hand moderation control of a course forum over to an unaffiliated student not taking the course. I noticed that MacNeill wasn't terribly "cherishing" of the commenter on PT that pointed that out.
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,18:10

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,18:13

If he's mad that someone on PT pointed out that handing over moderation to Hannah Maxson was a boneheaded move, well, tough. It was.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 05 2008,19:38

Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "< barred >".
Posted by: Art on July 05 2008,20:04

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,17:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Why am I not surprised? >  (That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 05 2008,20:29

I've never read much at TT in the past, but after reading this < comment by Joy > (is she FtK's sister? DT's mom?), I think I'll stop now. A commenter named Mesk wrote  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   During genome reconstruction you hit all sorts of crazy artefacts, mainly due to rearrangements caused by the bacteria used to grow up the chunks of chromosome for sequencing. There's no way researchers could tell the difference between a true CNV and a random artefact - so given that everything we knew about chromosomes and human health suggested that CNVs were rare, and the genome reconstruction algorithms were designed to filter out artefacts that looked exactly like CNVs, it's no wonder these things were missed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy replied

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? Regardless, it's nice that they've finally taken a step out of the stone age technologically. There are several human projects - medicine primary among them - that would greatly benefit from real knowledge. As opposed to slash-and-burn kill-em-all. I predicted that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Classic! Complete ignorance of molecular biology methods, coupled with the hubris to brag about some biological science prediction from your past.

Zach, it might be a good thing that you have been barred from some of those threads. That's fairly stunning stuff.
Posted by: olegt on July 05 2008,22:49

Joy is unique among the TT denizens.  She combines ignorance with arrogance that results in comments like < this one >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just an aside to let the groupies (as opposed to practicing scientists) know that in addition to the fact that no model of organic evolution that ignores physical theoretics can ever explain 'reality' as we perceive and experience it, I'd just like to add the scientific FACT that…

…if there are more than 3+1 dimensions in reality, we can't rule out the existence of intelligent life in any or all of them, or circumscribe the capabilities of such conscious existence according to the provisional [ignoring anomalies] 'rules' here in 3+1. Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep in mind that she is (or was at the time) herself a groupie of one < Matti Pitkänen >, a crackpot mathematical physicist.
Posted by: keiths on July 05 2008,23:06

Oleg,

You'll love < this one > if you haven't seen it already.

You're right. It's the combination of ignorance and arrogance (with a dollop of pure batshit insanity) that makes Joy so special.

Top-heavy ego-to-ability ratios, like hers and DaveScot's, have a special zest that is lacking in ordinary tard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 05 2008,23:43

Dave *really* doesn't understand probability:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-291993 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
24

DaveScot

07/05/2008

10:59 pm
Frost

So every event that has happened is indeed 1/1 retrospectively

No. Probabilities don’t change just because an outcome fell one way or another in the past. If a given flip of a fair coin turned up heads it doesn’t change the fact that the odds were 50/50 and will forever remain 50/50 for that fair coin.

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



So, Dave what are the odds of tossing 5 heads in a row, given that you've already tossed 5 heads?


ETA: crap, wrong thread.
Posted by: JAM on July 06 2008,00:58

Quote (Frostman @ July 05 2008,14:42)
It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Buddy, their penchant for historical revisionism should have been obvious from reading virtually anything either of them has written.

In addition to both of them being dishonest and hypocritical, Bradford is a first-class moron.

Relax. Just let the tard wash over you...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,01:47

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,19:38)
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "< barred >".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You weren't banned, you were barred from a specific thread. You can post freely in any thread you wish. You just can't continue to derail mine
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,01:48

Art writes:


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

That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions

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



I  don't get it. How is posting a redundant link a "probing question"?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:02

Frostman writes:


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

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

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



This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:



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

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

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



A clear attempt at disguising himself.



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

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.

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



In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.

This willingness to be deceptive speaks volumes. It shows the one who lacks ethics is frostman, not me.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,02:04

Hey Guts. Sorry if you're disoriented: we're a science blog, so there's no arbitrary censorship here. You'll get used to it. How's the ID journal coming? < Oh, sorry. >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:10

How would you know this is a science blog? You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 06 2008,02:18

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 05 2008,20:29)
Joy replied  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


It's E. coli.  Ask Prof. Lenski to send you some.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:23

I'll post another example of deception, this time from steve:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

He claims that we moderated his comment, and yet here it is on the live site:

< http://telicthoughts.com/aiguys-computer/#comment-193776 >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:27

It'll be fun excersize for the comming weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be, perhaps even occasionally cross post it to AE. See you guys later.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:28

oops i meant "exercise"  and cross post it to TT. You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,03:40

I don't look at TT having had my fill of Mike Gene years ago on the ARN BB. From the last two pages of this tread, I have not missed anything.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:18

yeah but Dr. GH  you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible.
Posted by: Zarquon on July 06 2008,04:27

Creationists are even less credible.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:29

Yeah you creationists are unreliable , you are all no different from creationists.What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:58

Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:59

"than this" stupid board
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:00

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,10:29)
Yeah you creationists are unreliable , you are all no different from creationists.What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then again, there's this pesky little thing called "evidence" that creationists, regardless of what cheap tuxedo they may favor, just seem to lack. Or disregard rather.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:03

I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:08

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:03)
I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great! It's getting published any day now I take it?
Well, you know where to find this thread when it's time to gloat after you've revolutionized the world of science.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:09

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:03)
I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts,

You sound like an angry 13 year old boy.

Then again, I've read your blog.

Guts, here's a challenge. Have a debate about an issue here, where you can't censor opposing views.

How about it?

Or does the thought of being shown to be a scientific ignoramus in a venue you don't control a frighting one?

And you'd better let the Pope know about the "evidence" for your position. They've been looking for some proof now for a while. *Any* proof.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:10

I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years. Notice how steve stays clear away from any of my technical blogs. It's because he's scientifically illiterate.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:15

Doesn't that bother you guys? That even your own moderator can't debate the important issues? If I was a part of this board, it would bother me.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:10)
I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:20

Right here. Come at me, I dare you.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:21

Please state:

A) The essence of your position

B) The single best piece of physical evidence for your position

C) A prediction that can be checked experientially that will
provide support for your position that will result in a different answer from the "standard" position.

----------------------

A) The diversity of biological life we see around us did not require any "telic" or supernatural intervention to come into being and can can be explained either by known processes or unknown, but not supernatural, processes. In addition, there was no "front loading".

B) I really like the sequence of horse fossils, but pick anything from < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html > it's all the same.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm >

C) Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:23

You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what's pathetic is that you think a debate can happen without the proponents setting out their position at the start.

Oddly people like you have been known to change their positions when counter-evidence comes up.

It's simply a matter of trust. I don't. Trust you. Therefore, at the start all the cards are on the table.

It's perhaps not surprising that you've gone from "Debate me anywhere, any time" to "oh, you've said something I don't like so I'm taking my ball and going home".

My conclusion? You are incapable of defending your position rationally. You sir, are a blowhard.

And it only took 3 posts to get there!

How embarrassing! Do you have an edit button to go back and clean up your mess?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's wrong with making sure your position is not misrepresented? Shouldn't take long.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:28

It seems to me that you are completely ignorant. You automatically assumed from the start that my position was wrong. But what position was that? The one you made up in your head? You don't even know my position? This thread is longer than most in this forum, it's pathetic to think you don't even know my position. What a waste of brain cells you are.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:29

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,05:28)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's wrong with making sure your position is not misrepresented? Shouldn't take long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you guys are the masters of misrepresentation. I've written many blogs , why not come at me from that stand point, unless you're afraid.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:30

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you're post is pathetic.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:32

"your" damn this board sucks.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:33

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:30)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you're post is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you going to do any actual debating (the points brought forth by oldman seem like a good starting point) or are you going to do the internet tough guy routine in perpetuity?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:34

Edited the post upstream by accident, here it is
Please state:


A) The essence of your position

B) The single best piece of physical evidence for your position

C) A prediction that can be checked experientially that will
provide support for your position that will result in a different answer from the "standard" position.

----------------------

A) The diversity of biological life we see around us did not require any "telic" or supernatural intervention to come into being and can can be explained either by known processes or unknown, but not supernatural, processes. In addition, there was no "front loading".

B) I really like the sequence of horse fossils, but pick anything from < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html > it's all the same.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm >

C) Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:35

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,05:33)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:30)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you're post is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you going to do any actual debating (the points brought forth by oldman seem like a good starting point) or are you going to do the internet tough guy routine in perpetuity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate. And make no mistake, you are weak.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:37



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

Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?

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



I could even make the case that elephants are complex. You still won't be anywhere close to my position.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:32)
"your" damn this board sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still, must be quiet round your other blogs for you to be bothering here then?

What, once everybody has back-slapped each other "yeah, we all agree, we are all right" there's not much left to say or do right?

We understand. For us this is entertainment. For you, well you actually think you are achieving something don't you?

As you've backed out of even stating your position clearly for the record it's obvious you are intractable in your head-in-the-sand position.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:37)


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

Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?

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



I could even make the case that elephants are complex. You still won't be anywhere close to my position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could, but you prefer to act like a 15 year old. Carry on.

Just cut and paste something from one of your "technical blogs" then if the idea of telling people who might not be familiar with your position (and trust me, that'll be 99.9% of people here) is so offensive.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:41



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

As you've backed out of even stating your position clearly for the record it's obvious you are intractable in your head-in-the-sand position.

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



Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position. It's awfully strange though that the very existence of this thread doesn't bother you given your admitted ignorance. Seems more like you're brainwashed.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:42



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

Just cut and paste something from one of your "technical blogs" then if the idea of telling people who might not be familiar with your position (and trust me, that'll be 99.9% of people here) is so offensive.

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



Or better yet, try refuing any of my technical blogs. You can't.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:43

refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:44

OR would you like to have a debate about something else?

Perhaps

The explanatory filter cannot be used and is in fact useless.

?

That's my position. To nullify this position all you have to do is to give us an example of the Explanatory Filter in use, with the mathematical details given, on a selection of objects.

To make it fair, you pick one object and we'll pick an object. You do the calculations, as nobody else can.

As problems stated mathematically are usually more amenable to unambiguous results there should be little debate if the EF can be shown to work. It either does, or it does not.

Can you prove, as your position seems to be, that the EF in fact works?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:44

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's not the only one that is completely ignorant of your position. I freely admit it. What is your position? If you don't want to restate it, perhaps you have a link that says more than ... is competely ignorant and ...sucks.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:45

The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:46

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Editing rights have to be earned.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:47

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:44)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean?

On the one hand you are saying "I don't debate people who don't know my position" and on the other you are saying "you are too intellectually challenged to debate me"

Both cannot be true.

Still, in your world, perhaps they can both be true and that's how you and people like you make your way in the world.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:47

So I wonder what the point of this thread is then if no one knows my position. Perhaps that will become clear in the comming weeks.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,05:48

Hello Nelson Alonso aka Guts,

You are digging yourself in deeper.  After being exposed for the scumbag that you are, out of desperation you come here to throw out random accusations and nonsense in sad attempt to distract from the recent stinging proof of your scumbaggery.


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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is awesome.  Quote-mining from the quote-mining advocate.  Well at least it is consistent: after your steadfast defense of Bradford's out-of-context quoting, you engage in it yourself.  Here is the full quote, fool.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.  anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts.  My posts here do not mention Nelson.  Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.  I assumed you would notice the use of your own name and immediately realize it was Frostman.  Alas, I forgot to apply the common knowledge that you are very, very stupid.

Please continue digging yourself further into this hole of yours, Nelson.  Each comment you make here gets you deeper.  It is quite gratifying to watch.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:45)
The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt that's why you said

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guts: Thats not a false positive wrt Dembski’s method, a false positive refers to using Dembski’s methodology to determine whether something is designed, and finding out it actually evolved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/telic-thoughts.html >
Changed your mind in the fact of evidence have you? I guess there's hope yet.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joseph Heller would have been proud :D
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,05:47)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:44)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean?

On the one hand you are saying "I don't debate people who don't know my position" and on the other you are saying "you are too intellectually challenged to debate me"

Both cannot be true.

Still, in your world, perhaps they can both be true and that's how you and people like you make your way in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said "I don't debate people who don't know my position" Why are you lying? I just said it was interesting, given the existence of this thread, that people don't know my position.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:52

Frostman,

Isn't it batshit insane, to refer to yourself in the third person. I truly think that you need psychological help, and if you e-mail me again, I can refer you to some experts that can help you.

I can post the relevant comment you left if you "blacked out" because of your "problem" and can't remember.

It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:52

Guts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No it doesn't, it just makes the EF fallible, and not perfect, like most sciences. If the EF detects an object as designed, and but we find out it actually evolved, then you can say that it's not reliable. But that hasn't happened yet. Pointing to the possibility that it might happen doesn't render it useless at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< hahah >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:57

Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,06:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:02

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:03

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:03

So, Guts, about the EF.

Currently laughable to you, but you obviously believed in it at some point (circa 2005).

What lead you to the truth of the matter?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:03)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've just shown how you've changed your position on the EF. Why is it so unbelievable you might have changed your other positions in the fact of factual evidence shown why those positions were wrong?

We don't know exactly where you've got to in your struggle to discard all the debris of a damaged mind, so if you can state your current position we can hold your hand while you inch towards the reality based community.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:07

Please, please, please, Guts,

State your position.

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:08

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts, have I said I don't know what your position is?

OK, what do you want to debate about?

Shall we try that?

How about "how the explanatory filter is a worthless construct that is only used to fool the less mathematical into believing that design detection has a foundation in reality when in fact it's just the math icing on a cake of nothing"
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:08

How do you know I changed my position on the EF? I actually did defend it at one point, not because I agreed with it but because it was being misrepresented but that doesn't mean I espouse it, that is a completely different issue.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,06:09

Nelson Alonso aka Guts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I've seen thick skulls before, but yours has got to be the thickest I have ever seen.  For the third time: the coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.

To witness your disintegration into a flailing ball of petulant 13-year-old comments here, right now, on this forum, is so awesome, Nelson.  Please, continue, continue.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:08)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:04)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts, have I said I don't know what your position is?

OK, what do you want to debate about?

Shall we try that?

How about "how the explanatory filter is a worthless construct that is only used to fool the less mathematical into believing that design detection has a foundation in reality when in fact it's just the math icing on a cake of nothing"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:10

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:08)
How do you know I changed my position on the EF? I actually did defend it at one point, not because I agreed with it but because it was being misrepresented but that doesn't mean I espouse it, that is a completely different issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simple question.

Does the EF, in your option, work or not?

Can it be used to "detect design"?

If "yes" why do you think that?

If "yes" can you give us an example?

If "no" can you say why you think it works without being able to give an example?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:11

Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,06:09)
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I've seen thick skulls before, but yours has got to be the thickest I have ever seen.  For the third time: the coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.

To witness your disintegration into a flailing ball of petulant 13-year-old comments here, right now, on this forum, is so awesome, Nelson.  Please, continue, continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frostman, you still haven't told me why you refer to yourself in the third person. Isn't that utterly insane? Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,06:12

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:03)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earlier in this thread you stated

 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:45)
The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But in a thread on telic thoughts in 2005 you wrote the following.

 
Quote (Guts @ May 06 2005 on TT)

PvM:
 

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

These statements combined with the admission that false positives are possible make the EF useless. For example, assume that ID had presented a clear case of an EF applied to infer design, how would we know that it had not forgotten a particular hypothesis?

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


No it doesn't, it just makes the EF fallible, and not perfect, like most sciences. If the EF detects an object as designed, and but we find out it actually evolved, then you can say that it's not reliable. But that hasn't happened yet. Pointing to the possibility that it might happen doesn't render it useless at all.

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



How is that not changing your position? Now do you understand why there might be some confusion regarding your position?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:15

I don't get it, I defend against falsehood, even the EF, if you're so utterly stupid that you don't get the EF, I will call you out on it. But it doesn't mean I espouse it. So i don't get your point.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling?

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:19

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:15)
I don't get it, I defend against falsehood, even the EF, if you're so utterly stupid that you don't get the EF, I will call you out on it. But it doesn't mean I espouse it. So i don't get your point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Defend the EF by giving us an example of it being used.

I bet you can't.

And further more I bet the reason you can't won't be "There is no example to give" but "you are a moron".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, is this you conceding the debate?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:20

No thats me conceding that you're a retard.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:24

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:20)
No thats me conceding that you're a retard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know you won't be able to go back and edit all this right?

How you got challenged to a debate and responded like a 10 year old?

It's good to know this is the best you've got.

In fact, like FTK, you are the best advertisement for what "telic thoughts" do to your brain.

Carry on the good work Guts, we'd be a lot worse off without your type of unthinking acceptance of such concepts as the EF. It serves to illustrate to the undecided lurkers the paucity of ideas and facts supporting your side of the "debate". Not that they know what your side is as you refuse to tell them. Sound laughable does it when you write it out? Don't blame you for not telling in that case.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:24

Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:27

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:31

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who's saying that?

The point is that before a debate or even discussion can happen you need to say something substantive that said discussion can be based upon.

Simply pointing to "my position is available on XYZ blogs" means nothing.

It's not a difficult to understand point.

Make some kind of point. People will agree or disagree. Then we can have a discussion, debate, whatever.

As yet, you've said nothing here to base such a discussion on.

Again, it's not a hard concept.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.

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



No need to write a book, surely? Just try a post with an example, starting with something like "my position on (fill in with subject of choice here) is..."
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:34

So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:35

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, tactic #73

Right now I'm too busy to demonstrate why you are all idiots, but *soon* I will, just you wait and see

Sure, why not do it now Guts? What's stopping you?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,06:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why wait?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:35)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, tactic #73

Right now I'm too busy to demonstrate why you are all idiots, but *soon* I will, just you wait and see

Sure, why not do it now Guts? What's stopping you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here, I just keep getting the utterly stupid question "what do you think about the EF", how utterly stupid is that? I mean really. You guys don't realize how stupid you are? That seems unlikely to me.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This thread was started as a commentary on the general doings at TT, as the traffic had slowed at UD, and some people find it interesting to observe what goes on at TT. So it is not about you or your position, although your moderating behaviour has been examined. But noöne is wanting to prevent you from demonstrating your superior intellect. We will welcome your contribution, as soon as we know what it is.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, provide a link to your best work.
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,06:47

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not actually provoking anything, though, except the willingness to let you carry on for as long as you like. It's not so much giving you enough rope as allowing you to pay out as much rope as you like, a la Aristophanes.

Refusing to state your position then throwing turds at people who ask, is certainly a path to enlightenment for anyone who cares to follow the thread. As a reader, I now feel very well informed about your actual position, because it's clearly demonstrated in all your postings. Am I wrong about what's being demonstrated here? It certainly looks like a classic example of a certain sort of behaviour - and not one recognisable as an attempt to debate.

If you want a debate, it's very simple. State your assumptions, state your evidence, state your logic and state your conclusion. A proper understanding of all four is necessary to make progress.

If you don't believe we're smart enough to understand this, why are you still here? Are you not smart enough to educate us?

Instead of throwing turds, why not expend that energy throwing evidence and logic? They're far harder to scrape off, when they hit.

R
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,06:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:48)
I never said "I don't debate people who don't know my position" Why are you lying? I just said it was interesting, given the existence of this thread, that people don't know my position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, perhaps you overestimate your importance in the world.  But, then again, perhaps I am just an ignint knuckledragger.  So, wow me.  Lay out your position so I can bask in your reflected glory.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:50

Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:52

But the bottom line is that AE is not about rational debate it's about cultivating flamers. I've dealt with this as soon as I banned the first flamer, keiths, and since then this blog has been an undeserved target.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:53

But hey, you guys want to play? I'm game. Lets play.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,06:56

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:50)
Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, I thought you wanted to debate here?  Now you are retreating to the safety of TT?    

*turns and speaks to adults*

I hate to say it, but this guy is even worse than JoeG. At least Joe tries to sound sciency and whatnot while he is insulting you.  

*turns back to guts*

HA HA THIS IS YOU


Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I do as you say, I get < this > which appears to just tell me your email. It lists thread titles from all contributors, but that is not very helpful. You must know the title of a thread post or two that you are proud of, surely?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:59

Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:00

Safety of TT ? I never said any such thing you're a moron
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,07:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:00)
Safety of TT ? I never said any such thing you're a moron
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your IQ must be off the scale.

I've rarely seen such a refined wit.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:04

Thanks, but I still think you're a retard. Flattery won't get you anywhere.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:06

Carlson using stars to simulate "emotes" that is so weird, i gotta tell ya.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:16

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,01:59)
Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for explaining :)

I have skimmed through the list and, frankly, there is not much substantive content from you, rather than lifting quotes from others. I will lift something from the list if you want, but generally someone such as Zachriel or Nick Matzke seem to have dealt adequately with your position. I can't believe you don't have a favourite thread where your debating skills are particulary well-demonstrated.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:17

"not much substantive content" is just you saying you can't respond because you're stupid. Just admit it.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:19

Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,07:22

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:50)
Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

People here who ask for evidence and logic are told that they're - what? Stupid? Liars? Deceivers? That's far less effective than giving them evidence and logic and then showing that they're stupid, lying or deceptive.

You may not see this as an exercise in avoiding any specificity, but it very much looks like it from here.

Given that you don't want it to look like that - which I assume, but feel free to tell me that assumption is false - why don't you have any interest in changing that perception? And if you do have that interest, why not do what everyone's asking you to do and be specific?

It could be that you're on a Zen jag, and are hitting the novices with sticks while asking paradoxical koans as an aid to enlightenment. There's a fine line between that and being a violent schizophrenic, though: Zen masters normally exhibit the wisdom of context.

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:24



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

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

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



More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:25

Alan Fox, you still there? You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:19)
Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems to me that if you want to fulfill your challenge, you would be the best person to provide material, as, presumably, you know where to look. I never offered to debate you, and I claim no special knowledge, other than BS biochemistry of many years ago.

So, I claim that I can find no substantive, unrefuted defence of Intelligent design as a worthwhile scientific pursuit anywhere at Telic Thoughts in your own words.

Please demonstrate that I am wrong. (Preferably with cites.)
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,07:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:24)


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

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

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



More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I unequivocally withdraw that part of my post and apologise unreservedly.

Now, will you answer the rest of that post?

Thanks

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:29

lol so I'll take that as a no. Pathetic. Can't even own up to what you consider a "creationist", really? a "creationist" made you look stupid? Wow Alan, just, wow.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact no one has asked me for my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:31

My position is that you're a moron.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is there one that makes some claim supporting Intelligent Design that you could link to?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:38

From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,07:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:31)
My position is that you're a moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assuming you're using one of the old medical definitions of a moron, either an adult with a developmental age between 8 and 12 or an IQ of between 51 and 70, then I think that any objective assessment of Alan's cognitive level based on his use of language, logic and social interaction purely evinced by his postings here would disagree sharply with yours.

Purely on the evidence, of course. Perhaps you can show how you reached your conclusions?

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:45

Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,07:45

Well, it does take a lot of guts to come over here and fill up a couple of pages with insults and egotism, without ever saying anything substantive at all. No brains, but a lot of guts...

Sorry I don't read your contributions to science at your many blogs; I tend to get most of my science from peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps you can give us a citation of your latest contribution to that literature.

And I'm really sorry I haven't heard of you before yesterday. If you can get over that insult to your ego, perhaps you can tell us something you believe in, besides insults.

Oh, and please tell < Joy > that Isaac Asimov was a biochemist, not a geneticist. Not that she would understand the difference, but because there actually IS a difference. Confusion about science seems to be a prime commodity over there on your "technical" blog...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:47

I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:38)
From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I further suggest that there is no thread topic on TT written by you that (randomly or otherwise) effectively undermines evolutionary theory, or, indeed, produces any evidence that Intelligent Design is more than a philosophical concept.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:49

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one, Nelson, or link to it.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:49

Alan Fox, come on I'm getting sleepy are you seriously this incompetent ?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:53

Ok , thats ok, this is simply a consquence of getting yourself "in over your head" maybe you'll be a little more hesitant next time though.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,07:53

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (< Nelson Alonso >).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,07:54

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,08:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact no one has asked me for my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found it:



Sorta ass out, with pouty lips. Some side-boob for a reach-around.

OK, back to making a fool out of yourself, Guts.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:56

I'm hotter than that actually.

Frostman,

For the third time, tell me what your mom thinks of you talking to yourself in the third person. I'm sure she disapproves. I mean, thats just nuts .
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,08:02

So I'm wrong, Guts?

I thought you weren't attempting to avoid specificity, but you really are?

Calling someone a moron for not addressing arguments, but then not saying what the arguments are - well, that's just calling someone a moron. Is that the reason you're claiming this thread is all about insults, because that's all you're prepared to contribute?

Come on, just one thing that's not a personal insult, that people of good intent can debate.

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:03

Wel I offered my writings and even showed where you can find them, but through it all, and you look back through all these pages, all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT. Tell me how does that not show that you are all stupid? I mean come on.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,08:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:56)
I'm hotter than that actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But your position, as articulated here, has no more substance.

I don't follow TT, Guts, have never read your posts nor your blogs, and have no familiarity with your stance in this debate. So I won't comment on any of that.

I can say, as a meta comment based upon the sample of the last few pages: you come across as an asshole.

Why not assert something with substance? Then we're off to the races.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,08:06

Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,02:53)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (< Nelson Alonso >).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, the problem is there's a demonstration of Camargais bullfighting (the bull survives, some human participants may not!) in the local town just starting, and i did rather want to see it.

@Guts,

When you decide to enlighten us with an example of your best work, let me know.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:08

So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that. Pages and pages of false accusations , no one even knows my position, no one can refute any of my technical blogs, and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole. Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics, and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.

I call shenanigans.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,08:09

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,09:08)
So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that. Pages and pages of false accusations , no one even knows my position, no one can refute any of my technical blogs, and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole. Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics, and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:12

Look in the mirror to see the asshole, look in the mirror.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,08:13

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,09:12)
Look in the mirror to see the asshole, look in the mirror.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe so.

But just sayin', Guts.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:14

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link to one then.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've been the best evidence for that.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pages and pages of false accusations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no one even knows my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or nobody cares.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no one can refute any of my technical blogs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"technical blogs"? is that something you made up yourself? Aww, pretending to be a scientist now are you, how sweet! Link to an example please.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ting is as ting is.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you tell the difference between them and your target audience how exactly?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ting is as ting is.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I call shenanigans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps that has some meaning where you can edit history but your behaviour and refusal to support any of your points is plain over the last couple of pages.

You are making yourself look foolish far better then anybody else is.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:20

It's very simple, go to TT , click on my name ( not on the sidebar like Alan Faux did, click on my name on a blog i've written) and then refute it. It's very simple, I'm surprised actually that no one has done so yet, it's actually quite laughable.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,08:22

Could somebody PM me if

1) gutless runs out of insults, or

2) gutless provides a link to a peer-reviewed paper it authored, or

3) gutless provides a link to a blog where it authored a substantive argument, or

4) gutless answers oldman's questions, or

5) gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion.

Thanks
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:22



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

Name one

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



My pleasure.

Frostman wrote this:



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

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

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




This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:



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

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

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



Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:22)


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

Name one

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



My pleasure.

Frostman wrote this:



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

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

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




This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:



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

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

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



Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations. That's how you do it. Say something then support it with evidence.

Now, there are several other questions, not least your changing position on the EF pending.

Get going.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:23



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

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion

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



lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2008,08:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:24)
     

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

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

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


More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

For the record, I have asked for your position on the < 3….2….1….”Rabbit Thread >. I crosslinked back here—with a warning.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: By the way, I just noticed the discussion on AtBC's Telic Thoughts thread (Warning PG13: juvenile taunts, sexual innuendo, crude language, some partial nudity, and persistent bad taste).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Crude language >: "your" damn this board sucks.

< Juvenile taunts >: My position is that you're a moron.

< Sexual innuendo >: I'm hotter than that actually.

< Some partial nudity >: I found it:

< Persistent bad taste >: No thats me conceding that you're a retard.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:23)


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

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion

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



lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet here you are, and you appear to be throwing the most turds.

I guess you must like throwing turds instead of having a worthwhile discussion.

Your "technical blogs" appear to support that position.

If you want meaningful discussion, please pick a topic. There will be some who will oblige, no doubt, on any topic you choose to pick.

Do it, or are you a coward? All mouth? Any trouser there?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:29

Zachriel writes:


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

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

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



Zach, your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence, otherwise you wouldn't write such tripe. In fact, if you would look at the memory hole, you'll see your thread derailing post in all it's glory. How sad :(
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:33

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:29)
your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've yet to prove otherwise yourself, failing to raise yourself above the level of a angry 10 year old throwing insults about.

Pick a topic.

Have a debate.

Forget for a moment that you are an internet sensation, consider the fact that many people have no idea who you are and their first impression of you is from this thread. I imagine the number of actual real life scientists is considerably higher here then you are used to and if you play your cards right you might even learn something.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:03)
Wel I offered my writings and even showed where you can find them, but through it all, and you look back through all these pages, all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT. Tell me how does that not show that you are all stupid? I mean come on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you think that people will believe that solely on the basis of your say-so do you?

Sure, you call it deception, I call it shining a light onto your tactics.

I can see why you might like it to stop and how it's been needling you for a while now until it's got to this point.

Are you drunk Guts? Will you regret this in the morning?

No edit button for you!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,08:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:23)


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

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion

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



lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, then you win. You seem to be the owner/producer of the largest pile of turds here. And you haven't even linked to your "many technical blogs" yet!

Next.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2008,09:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:29)
Zachriel writes:
   

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

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

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


Zach, your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence, otherwise you wouldn't write such tripe. In fact, if you would look at the memory hole, you'll see your thread < derailing post > in all it's glory. How sad :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: I looked for a link on the main page called "< Memory Hole >" and it was empty.

I appreciate that. Now, everyone can determine for themselves that there was nothing in my comment that deserved banning barring, by any reasonable reading.

< Guts >: But this is what you do Zach everytime you are proven wrong, you back peddle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This statement just tickles me. Heaven forbid someone admit error or try to clarify a misstatement.

I'm still smarting from when Hermagoras smacked me down for mixing my Greek and Latin roots.


Posted by: midwifetoad on July 06 2008,09:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Guts:

Why do anti-ID activists here, like Raevmo, feel the need to act like spoiled retarded children? It blows my mind.

Excuse me? I just mentioned that Shubin's claim to fame was his discovery of Tiktaalik. I see you have deleted that post. Why is that?


Comment by Raevmo — July 5, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Guts Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm I just went through this with Zachriel. I already provided a link to that, the topic is not Shubin's discovery, the topic is well beyond Shubin's discovery.


Comment by Guts — July 5, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
steve Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm Speaking of Zachriel, why was he covertly banned? That kind of behavior flies at Uncommon Descent, but I thought people here had some ethics.


Comment by steve — July 5, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Guts Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm he wasn't banned. he was barred from this thread.


Comment by Guts — July 5, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

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


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,09:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:23)
I'll post another example of deception, this time from steve:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

He claims that we moderated his comment, and yet here it is on the live site:

< http://telicthoughts.com/aiguys-computer/#comment-193776 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When one goes to that link here on AtBC, one finds Steve saying that his comment was in a moderation queue, meaning it did not simply appear on the site as and when submitted. It does not claim that the comment was never published, so showing the comment was published is precisely irrelevant to Steve's comment.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2008,10:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: I didnt ban you at all, I simply sent an off topic comment to the memory hole. And prevented you from doing it again. This is regularly done here and needs no explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All my scribbling about handwaving and netiquette and handwaving and respect and chronicling, and more handwaving and how to make an argument and why. Dozens of comments, hours of work (well minutes anyway). All summarized by a master in a handful of poetic words.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: "Shut up," he explained.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< >
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,10:06

I have been back through TT's list of Guts' postings. Quiet Sunday afternoon here.

The fact that he refuses to point to any of his 'technical blogs' for discussion about how they support ID is that none of them do. There's stuff snipped from elsewhere and a "How about that then!", and plenty of "If this supports x, it's interesting". Rarely is any connection explicitly made, rarely is there anything that can be argued about without asking for more information.

When he does dare to actually make a statement, for example that snake venom evolution is clearly < "not standard" >, and then backs it up with "Huh? Do you have any questions? feel free to ask.", he gets Nick Matzke asking "How is venom evolution far from 'standard'?". Guts' answer: "Read the links."

The thread's still there for anyone who wants to see how it develops, although -- spoiler -- it won't take a path unfamiliar to anyone who's read this far on this one.

Elsewhere, hrun comes a cropper when he asks why convergent evolution is better evidence for front-loading than it is for standard evolutionary biology. Guts having refused to answer the question three times except by saying "It's all answered elsewhere", (hrun gallantly tries to ascertain where and how, thus using up the rest of his lives), he finally deals with the question < thusly: >"I explained it , twice, in the misconceptions thread, in my first post and linked to an essay about it. You ignored all three attempts. All you're doing is repeating yourself. It doesn't seem like you're actually asking questions, it seems like you're trolling."

To be fair, guts isn't the only one who likes to argue through unexplained co-option where inference is unclear and implications arguable. His use of multiple layers of indirection and wooly definitions, treating those who attempt to clarify his position as idiots and trolls, is also familiar. Although I do think he has a useful innovation in his 'three strikes and you're out' policy; it's rather like the early moves in Minesweeper, but on a board entirely populated by single-mine squares.

Entire academic careers have built on such things (I'm looking at you, po-mo). They never amount to much. They're cancerous growths whose principle purpose is to consume resources, resist attack and grow without care for good or harm done to the rest of the organism. While science has a rather iffy immune system in the short term and on the small scale, it operates very effectively over periods of generations and in the larger context.

Unless it's made illegal.

R
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,10:25

< >

You'll need those Guts, you've been served.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,10:25

Nelson Alonso aka Guts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk.  Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!"  I'll let you decide that one: do you support the public's right to be informed of fraud, or do you support Popoff's right to not be deceived?  Considering that he takes millions from the poor, the elderly, and the sick, the answer should be clear.

Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud.  The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.

Nelson Alonso, I have plainly documented your unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts on this forum, notably < here > and in lengthy detail here: < Nelson Alonso >.  Your conduct shown therein is indefensible, and indeed you have not defended it.  My last post to Telic Thoughts was not mere random turd-throwing, as you are want to do here.  It had a purpose: to expose you.  In it I gave links to my posts here.  The public has a right to be informed of the unethical conduct flourishing at Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,10:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:10)
I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years. Notice how steve stays clear away from any of my technical blogs. It's because he's scientifically illiterate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I look for in a moderator is an ability to deal with people socially using the written word.

Steve has that.

And, having interacted with for years and having met Steve in person, I can testify that the claim of "scientific illiteracy" is a bogus canard, too.

"Doing it for years"... I had a look back at the archives, and found < this terminal post in an exchange of ours > from 2000.

As for scientific acumen, one should not confuse scientific knowledge with an inability to take a point and copious amounts of spare time to endlessly reply repeating the initial confusion.

 

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

Argumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam
   (np) 1. Argument premised on the basis that any assertion repeated often enough is, perforce, true. This rhetorical mode is a frequent companion of Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK, or denigrations of correspondents. There exists great variability in the frequency and timing of the repetitions.

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



Discussions should have beginnings, middles, and ends. Someone who declares victory simply because they do not tire of repeating themselves isn't proving anything except the possibility of a perseverative disorder.

 

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

Continuous perseveration (inappropriate prolonged continuation and repetition of a current behaviour)

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



Nelson might ask why I am not a participant at his "technical blogs". I'll take the complementary position to that Nelson laid out back in 2000 about me:

 

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

When you have responded to the same criticism over and over again, and when they refuse to respond to other IDers , but just respond to Dembski, then you kinda get the feeling that there is something more going on. Let Wesley and Rich publish their material in the forums Dembski provided, then they will be taken seriously. Otherwise, their motivation is obvious.

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



Since then, I have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Biology and Philosophy and have two book chapters to my credit on IDC. A further paper should be out in another journal within the year. Since Nelson claimed I was ignorable until published, I'll treat him to a helping of the same standard.
Posted by: keiths on July 06 2008,12:00

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,06:04)
I don't follow TT, Guts, have never read your posts nor your blogs, and have no familiarity with your stance in this debate. So I won't comment on any of that.

I can say, as a meta comment based upon the sample of the last few pages: you come across as an asshole.

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


As someone who has followed TT for a couple of years, I can say that RB's impression of Guts is quite accurate.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,12:11

What's Telic Tards stance on 'moderation'?
Easier to post than here or less?
How many biologists do they have in their line up?
How does 'arbitrarily rank in 4 dimensions, aggregate and discuss' count as science?

edited.
Posted by: lcd on July 06 2008,12:25

Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,12:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson, your mom told you to get your ass out of her basement and get a job. You're an embarrassment.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,12:29

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The amazing thing is everyone can see them and discuss their merits. They're not vanished away somewhere. Personally, I wont register at Telic Tards because I doubt any of my posts would get through.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,12:33

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,10:25)
Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,12:36

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:28)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson, your mom told you to get your ass out of her basement and get a job. You're an embarrassment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Faggotry? Oh hark, the bigot.

Guts, you're a shoitehawk. simple as.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,12:36

Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,12:40

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,10:36)
Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, he's just intoxicated with his own stupidity.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,13:04

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd

Perhaps you could read this thread again, starting with Guts' first postings... When did the name-calling start? Frankly, given the grade-school level of his comments here, I think an objective observer would say that most of the regulars exhibited remarkable restraint.

But let's not just take my word for it. Let's go to the evidence.

===

Guts first reply on this thread, after posting three without a response: "You're obviously scientifically illiterate."

second reply: "I'll post another example of deception" (later shown by Wes to not be an example of deception after all).

third reply: "It'll be fun excersize (sic) for the comming (sic) weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be"

fourth reply: "You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck"

After a non-abusive reply from Dr.GH, a fifth reply: "you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible."

sixth and seventh reply, all with no intervening comments by anyone else: "What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic." "piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses"

after a non-abusive comment by dnmlthr, this response: "I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please"

Choice insults from some of his other 90 posts

"You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic."

"What a waste of brain cells you are."

"you are weak in terms of intellectual debate."
(note the intellectual content of his comments to this point...)

"How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate."

"Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?"

"You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable (sic) fact of life."

"No thats (sic) me conceding that you're a retard."

"No i'm (sic) trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it."

"Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd."


Etc.
===

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?
Posted by: lcd on July 06 2008,13:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,13:10

Albatrossity: Actually, I think he had 20-30 or so posts under his belt prior to his latest visit, bringing his latest spree to 60-70 or so.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,13:22

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,19:09)

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd: Classical physics is still usable, more than anything else it's a matter of scale. Neither relativity nor QM have replaced newtonian physics for day-to-day* stuff that goes on on the surface of the planet. As for grand unified theories, work is being done, but who knows where it will lead?

The EF, on the other hand, has yet to produce any testable predictions at all.

Edit:
Contrast that with the theory that they're not trying to augment (see examples above) but completely supplant, which is in use every single day all across the globe.
End of edit.

* I'm sure someone around here uses both on a daily basis, but you get my point.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,13:25

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,13:09)
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strawman. Who said it had to be perfect?  It just has to work as advertised, and lead to predictive hypotheses that can lead to experiments that can generate more support for the notion.

That's where ID fails. The EF has not been demonstrated to work on any biological system, it leads to no predictive hypotheses or experiments, and thus there has been no experimental support.

Furthermore, when you say that "mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right" you are ignoring the fact that science is always provisional. Old theories get replaced by new ones IF the evidence supports the new theory, and IF the new theory has greater explanatory power. In many cases the old theory still has some value as well (your example of classical physics is a good one in that regard).


If you think that ID has greater explanatory power, it is your responsibility to show us the evidence for that. If you do so, it will be a first, since Dembski, Behe, Wells and their ilk have demonstrated nothing of the sort.

If you want to call this response a "flame", then go ahead. But it seems pretty civil to me.

ps - thanks, dnmlthr, for the correction. I hadn't run across his posts before, and it sure seemed like he ran up 90 posts last night!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,13:31

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 06 2008,14:04)
 
Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd

Perhaps you could read this thread again, starting with Guts' first postings... When did the name-calling start? Frankly, given the grade-school level of his comments here, I think an objective observer would say that most of the regulars exhibited remarkable restraint.

But let's not just take my word for it. Let's go to the evidence.

===

Guts first reply on this thread, after posting three without a response: "You're obviously scientifically illiterate."

second reply: "I'll post another example of deception" (later shown by Wes to not be an example of deception after all).

third reply: "It'll be fun excersize (sic) for the comming (sic) weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be"

fourth reply: "You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck"

After a non-abusive reply from Dr.GH, a fifth reply: "you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible."

sixth and seventh reply, all with no intervening comments by anyone else: "What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic." "piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses"

after a non-abusive comment by dnmlthr, this response: "I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please"

Choice insults from some of his other 90 posts

"You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic."

"What a waste of brain cells you are."

"you are weak in terms of intellectual debate."
(note the intellectual content of his comments to this point...)

"How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate."

"Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?"

"You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable (sic) fact of life."

"No thats (sic) me conceding that you're a retard."

"No i'm (sic) trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it."

"Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd."


Etc.
===

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guts.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,13:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:45)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and given what I've seen to that point in this thread, I wouldn't suggest anyone hold their breath on that edit button.

Looks like y'all are having some fun.  I can't believe none of you biatches dropped me an email...

:p

Edited because I can.


Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,13:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd suggest you start a little closer to home, Nellie.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,13:55

Well, the handful of pages that went up between last night and this morning were more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

ETA: okmaybenot


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:17

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,11:09)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

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


We'll take that as a 'no, I won't' to my original question.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,14:22

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:06)
Carlson using stars to simulate "emotes" that is so weird, i gotta tell ya.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it?  I spend two and a half hours crammed like a sardine in a 757, then scurry like mad between terminals to catch my puddle-jumper home, all in anticipation of some witty riposte from you, and that is the best you come up with?

You are so gay.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:23

No using stars to do emotes is gay.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:26



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

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

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



Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:26

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You seem quite obsessed with homosexuality. What's that about?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,14:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




pleased i didn't fall into Teh_gay_trap. This is fulla stars.

edit: yes.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:27

You're the one that mentioned gay first, not me.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,14:27

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:40)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,10:36)
Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, he's just intoxicated with his own stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reminds me of this classic exchange from < The Matchmaker >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marcy Tizard: Is being an idiot like being high all the time?

Sean Kelly: No, it's like being constantly right.

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,14:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)


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

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

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



Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well it's better than putting up with "research", "experiments" and "science", eh?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:29

That doesn't make sense, those are things you do at a lab, but then sometimes you want to come home and relax in front of the computer. Thats when you have to deal with trolls.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,14:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I crumble in the face of your rapier-like wit.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:30

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:27)
You're the one that mentioned gay first, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoops:

   
Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try again.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,14:32

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)
 

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

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

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



Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And there might even be a good reason for that. Why don't you knock the dust-bunnies off the ol' Nixplanatory Filter and see if you can figure it out?

Or maybe this will be quicker - ID proponents invite abuse by

1) never answering a question the first (or second, or third or nth) time.

2) never giving any evidence for their claims

and 3) trying to hide 1 and 2 by hurling insults or concentrating on personalities rather than facts.

There might be more items in this list, but I suspect that we have gone past your grade-school attention span with three.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:33

Your dipping outside our conversation pool there.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:34

What are you talking about, I answer questions on a daily basis whenever I make a blog. I always answer questions.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:39

Frostman writes:


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

see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk.  Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!"  

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



lol Frostman essentially admits that he is a liar.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,14:40

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:34)
What are you talking about, I answer questions on a daily basis whenever I make a blog. I always answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great. Here's a question while you're here.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:46

You coyly qualify that with "accommodated by evolutionary theory", anything except creationism can be accommodated by evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,14:48

This is one of my favorites:
     
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,04:58)
Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Functions from to ? You got the Gamma function and the Reimann-Zeta function?





You got those?  Do ya?  Huh?  Well, do ya?  We got 'em right there.  Read 'em and weep.  Yeah, that's right.  I be guessin' yo blog ain't so hot now, punk.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:49

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:46)
You coyly qualify that with "accommodated by evolutionary theory", anything except creationism can be accommodated by evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cute nonanswer. It's clear why your blog is such a powerhouse of science.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:51

Thanks Arden, but flatter will get you ... everywhere.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:51

flattery godddamnit.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:51

When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,14:52

Please keep the blog going though. It's very amusing to watch you guys pretend to be scientific revolutionaries. Or even scientifically relevant.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:54

how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:51)
When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's 'never' sound?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,14:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:46)
You coyly qualify that with "accommodated by evolutionary theory", anything except creationism can be accommodated by evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing coy about it. If ID is to replace evolutionary theory, it will have to explain things that evolutionary theory cannot explain. That's how science works.If ID can't perform in this regard, it's not ready for serious consideration.

And there are LOTS of possible experimental outcomes which could not be accommodated by evolutionary theory. Let's not get bogged down in those, however. Let's try to focus on the original question, which you not-so-coyly avoided answering.

Care to try again?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:56

Unless you're not proposing a replacement theory, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,14:58

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:34)
What are you talking about, I answer questions on a daily basis whenever I make a blog. I always answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect you imaine you make art every time you make a turd.  I had a dog like that, he seemed to take great pride in his turds, especially when he shat in another dog's yard. He would run around and come back to give them a good sniff. He seemed indignant when I cleaned them up.

Alot like you in fact.

Of course, you make blogs too, and boogers. Your delusions of adequacy must be crippling. Same ol' same ol'.

Edited to change "buggers" to "boogers." Neatness counts.

Edited again to not correct a spelling error, but merely to show that I could have edited to correct a spelling error if I felt like correcting a spelling error when I wanted to correct it.

Edited yet again to point out that I don't want to correct the spelling error. But, I could have by using the editing function available to be becasue I can.

Edited to correct one spelling error, but not the rest in cluding these and the other ones.


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,14:59

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Steve, you should be arbitrarily ranking things form 1-5 and there should be 4 categories. Then add the scores and then waffle on about it for a while. THAT is how science is done.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:00



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

I suspect you imaine you make art every time you make a turd.

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



No I meant what I said, the accusation was that I don't answer questions, in fact I answer many questions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:00

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obsession with homosexuality -- check.

Constantly resorting to violent fantasies against opponents -- check.

"I know you are but what am I?" insults -- check.

See, Nelson, this is why people say you come across like a petulant 15-year-old.

Anyway, are you going to answer Albatrossity's questions? Show us all how scientifically literate YOU are.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're not proposing a replacement theory, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're dodging the question again, Nelson.

If you're feeling backed into a corner, you can accuse us of 'faggotry' again. Won't impress anyone, but I assume you'll feel better.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:02

I'm not dodging anything, that is a direct answer.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:02

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,15:55)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:51)
When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's 'never' sound?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Guts is no doubt aware, IDers like to rewrite the past. They tried to do that here a few times, and so we had to take edit buttons away from new users.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:02)
I'm not dodging anything, that is a direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you refuse to answer Albatrossity's questions?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,15:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:00)
 

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

I suspect you imaine you make art every time you make a turd.

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



No I meant what I said, the accusation was that I don't answer questions, in fact I answer many questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then one more can't be much of a hassle, can it? You've got several earlier in the thread to choose from.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:03

You're projecting Steve.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:04



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

So you refuse to answer Albatrossity's questions?

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



What part of "direct answer" don't you understand?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, your < revolution isn't going to be punching anyone in the face. >
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:03)
You're projecting Steve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG OMG OMG: < YOU'RE PROJECT STEVE >

*squints*

Oh. "I know you are but what am I?"

Done many ID experiments, Guts?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:06

lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,15:07

Is "guts" Nelson?

The dawn appears.

Edited to add (because I can): I was wondering if "guts" was DaveTard on speed.


Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,15:08

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,15:05)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, your < revolution isn't going to be punching anyone in the face. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a < new revolution > in the works, Steve.  That'll show us!
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:09

PCID was never an ID journal? That's so dumb I suspect you aren't Telic Thoughts's Guts, but rather someone trying to make him look bad.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:10

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:56)
Unless you're not proposing a replacement theory, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Was this addressed to me?

If so, where's the flaw? Does classical mechanics still explain a lot of stuff?  Yes. Does quantum mechanics explain stuff that classical mechanics can't explain? Yes. Did quantum mechanics completely "replace" classical mechanics? No. Should a new paradigm explain things that the older paradigm can't explain? Yes. Does it have to replace it? No.

Do some IDists want to replace evolutionary theory with ID? < Yes. >

Will Nelson answer the question?  All signs point to no. But here it is again, in case the stench from all of your red herrings made you forget about it.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:10

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists rules out ID?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:11

Why do you think they invited Kaufmann and other self-organization theorists. You are quite ignorant.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:11

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,13:07)
Is "guts" Nelson?

The dawn appears.

Edited to add (because I can): I was wondering if "guts" was DaveTard on speed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, 'Guts' is Nelson's Internet-Tough-Guy name.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:13

Albatrossity2,

You cannot possibly take those examples from physics and make a general "law" out of it. Sometimes you will propose an extension to the theory that completes it, especially when you're talking about historical sciences, it just sheds things in a better light. You cannot possibly be serious with those examples from physics.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:13

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all those articles that HAVEN'T appeared in PCID are all by 'complexity theorists'. I see.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:14

nelson?


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:14

Steve,

Now it's quite clear that you are both scientifically illiterate and ignorant of basic facts.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:13)
Albatrossity2,

You cannot possibly take those examples from physics and make a general "law" out of it. Sometimes you will propose an extension to the theory that completes it, especially when you're talking about historical sciences, it just sheds things in a better light. You cannot possibly be serious with those examples from physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another nonanswer, Nelson.

Call us faggots. That'll show us.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:13)
Albatrossity2,

You cannot possibly take those examples from physics and make a general "law" out of it. Sometimes you will propose an extension to the theory that completes it, especially when you're talking about historical sciences, it just sheds things in a better light. You cannot possibly be serious with those examples from physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,15:13)
Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all those articles that HAVEN'T appeared in PCID are all by 'complexity theorists'. I see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:16

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:14)
Steve,

Now it's quite clear that you are both scientifically illiterate and ignorant of basic facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you're about to start talking about science any second now, right Nelson?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:17

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:15)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,15:13)
Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all those articles that HAVEN'T appeared in PCID are all by 'complexity theorists'. I see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't care why a 'major' ID journal hasn't done anything in 2+ years?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:17

something's gay, Frost is a liar, this is a 'piece of shit board', I'm scientifically illiterate....I would advise everyone to have some skepticism. This might not be the real 'guts'.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:17



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

It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

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



Then why did you even mention them? Thats rather retarded.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:17

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Articles accepted to the journal  must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication. The  journal  will be published in electronic form only (there will be no print version).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The editorial advisory board peer-reviews articles submitted to the society's journal and comprises the society fellows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ISCID is pleased to announce the latest issue of PCID, Volume 3.1 November 2004. The journal features papers from Royal Truman, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bold for Guts benefit. All from < http://www.iscid.org/ > and < http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php >

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however.

EDIT: The link and logo even says "< the journal >"

Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:15)
The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No research papers to publish.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:19

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:17)
 

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

It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

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



Then why did you even mention them? Thats rather retarded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another nonanswer, tough guy.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:19

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:17)


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

It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

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



Then why did you even mention them? Thats rather retarded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because you seem to need examples. That's also why I answered my own questions in a previous comment, to show you how it works. Let's see you try to answer one.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?

[chirp chirp snooooooze]
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:20



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

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however

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



Maybe you should take some basic reading comprehension classes. I never said it wasn't a journal, I said it wasn't specifically an ID journal. Dumbass.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:20

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,15:18)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:15)
The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No research papers to publish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least "bible code" tried...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:21



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

Because you seem to need examples. That's also why I answered my own questions in a previous comment, to show you how it works. Let's see you try to answer one.

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



So do you or do you not believe that your examples from physics apply generally?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:22

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,15:09)
PCID was never an ID journal? That's so dumb I suspect you aren't Telic Thoughts's Guts, but rather someone trying to make him look bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Put a link up on TT "Guts" to prove you are who you say you are.

:p
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:20)


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

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however

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



Maybe you should take some basic reading comprehension classes. I never said it wasn't a journal, I said it wasn't specifically an ID journal. Dumbass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you put the content through the EF, Guts, and tell us what you think they're banging on about?

ETA a "t"
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:24

Is that english?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:20)
 

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

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however

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



Maybe you should take some basic reading comprehension classes. I never said it wasn't a journal, I said it wasn't specifically an ID journal. Dumbass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That your final answer, tough guy?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism. PCID focuses especially on the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems. PCID welcomes survey articles, research articles, technical communications, tutorials, commentaries, book and software reviews, educational overviews, and controversial theories. The aim of PCID is to advance the science of complexity by assessing the degree to which teleology is relevant (or irrelevant) to the origin, development, and operation of complex systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

 

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

So do you or do you not believe that your examples from physics apply generally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Nelson, why do you refuse to answer Albatrossity's questions?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:24)
Is that english?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must...change...subject.....




ETA: No, it isn't. It has a big "E'.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:21)
So do you or do you not believe that your examples from physics apply generally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We can discuss that when/if you ever answer my question, which is, I think, a lot more pertinent to the topic of ID and science in general.

By my count you have posted 20 comments since you claimed that you answer questions. None of them has been an answer to this simple question.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:30



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

BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

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



Once again your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say it wasn't ID either.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:30)


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

BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

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



Once again your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say it wasn't ID either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:31

Albatross, by your refusal to answer my simple question, I figured you conceded that this qualifier "cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory" is unnecessary, but now we're back to square one.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:31

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:30)


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

BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

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



Once again your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say it wasn't ID either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, not the real thing. Edit something on TT "Guts" and show us.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:32



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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:33

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:32)


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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A second ago you knew nothing about it!

I call troll pretending to be Guts.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:33

Where did I say I knew nothing about it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:34

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:33)
Where did I say I knew nothing about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care."

Make up your mind, cupcake!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:35

lol that says I don't know what happened that they stopped publishing and the journal never talk off. Thats not the same as saying I know nothing about it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:40

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:31)
Albatross, by your refusal to answer my simple question, I figured you conceded that this qualifier "cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory" is unnecessary, but now we're back to square one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I addressed that bit of weaseling < here >, and again < here >. So it is at least square three.

I'm concluding that you can't answer the question. So here's an easier, but related, question. Note that it omits the problematic clause. I'm betting you still won't answer it.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:31)
Albatross, by your refusal to answer my simple question, I figured you conceded that this qualifier "cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory" is unnecessary, but now we're back to square one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why won't you answer Alb's question, Nelson?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:44

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:32)


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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a journal exploring 'design' and 'teleology' and Dembski's the first editor, but it's not an ID journal. Gotcha.

Edited 'cuz I can: I suppose the fact that they can't get their shit together to, like, *publish* gives them some deniability, eh, Nelson?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:45

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,15:33)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:32)
 

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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A second ago you knew nothing about it!

I call troll pretending to be Guts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently this troll is indeed the real Gutless.

< link >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:46



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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:46)


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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonanswer. Try again.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:49

I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,15:50

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,15:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh leave him alone, guys.  He can't give any answers.  Not qualified.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:53

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:54

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:46)


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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed they are problematic, but only because ID is problematic.

There is no shortage of examples in lots of scientific arenas  where iconoclastic ideas were proposed, scoffed at, and then vindicated at the Nobel Prize level a decade or so later. Here are a few from Biology. Prions. Chemiosmosis. Viruses that cause cancer. Reverse transcriptase.

How did that happen? Predictive hypotheses, experiments, replication by other scientists. You know, just science at work, per usual.

You can't provide a single example of a single predictive hypothesis and successful experiment made on the basis of ID principles, more than a decade after the notion was first proposed. Not one. But you sure can dance.

Bye
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,15:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:53)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that really was the case you could have shut us all up a long time ago. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,15:56

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:46)


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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some predictions do lead to actual experiments.

ID has certainly had funding for other activities.

Postdiction can be interesting. But prediction is more powerful.

So, what predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

That's a valid question, Guts.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,15:56

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 06 2008,15:45)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,15:33)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:32)
 

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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A second ago you knew nothing about it!

I call troll pretending to be Guts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently this troll is indeed the real Gutless.

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts' admission of trolling has just disappeared from TT.  Classy guy!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:57



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

You can't provide a single example of a single predictive hypothesis and successful experiment made on the basis of ID principles, more than a decade after the notion was first proposed. Not one. But you sure can dance.

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



Im trying to tease our your fundmental misunderstanding of science. After admitting your problem, comes healing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:59

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, and there's nothing ID can explain that evolution can't. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"
Posted by: Quack on July 06 2008,15:59

Interesting thread. Seems it has a purpose - and that is not about ID.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:01



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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, and there's nothing ID can explain that evolution can't. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



It's a lot more complex than that. Bayes Theorem seems to imply that there is no difference between prediction and accommodation, because the conditional probabilities used in Bayes Theorem are temporally neutral.  There have been attempts to build such a distinction into a Bayesian epistemology, but the more common move among Bayesians is to deny the importance of the distinction.  For example, Einstein's Relativity Theory got support from the fact that it correctly implied the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, though that information was known long before Einstein formulated the theory.  I myself am sympathetic to the view that accurate prediction provides more confirmational support than accommodation, but most Bayesians would not agree.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:02

For the record, here's how it looked:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  steve Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Just a heads-up–over at After the Bar Closes, on the Telic Thoughts thread, someone pretending to be 'Guts' is making an ass of himself. So far he's said that we're 'gay', 'projecting', 'ignorant', 'scientifically illiterate', our board is a 'piece of shit'. etc etc etc.

If the real Guts is being unfairly maligned by an impersonator, he can contact Wesley Elsberry to put a stop to it.

Comment by steve — July 6, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Bradford Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

steve:


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

   Just a heads-up–over at After the Bar Closes, on the Telic Thoughts thread, someone pretending to be 'Guts' is making an ass of himself. So far he's said that we're 'gay', 'projecting', 'ignorant', 'scientifically illiterate', our board is a 'piece of shit'. etc etc etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Steve, insulting people is the norm at that site. Many times the objects of hate are people not even posting at AtBC. So 'Guts' is following the maxim "when in Rome do as the Romans do."

Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Guts Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I'm just having fun trolling your board, much like you guys come here to troll us.

Comment by Guts — July 6, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

#  steve Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I actually thought you were being impersonated. Mibad. Over and out.
Click to Edit

Comment by steve — July 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But Guts has now disappeared his comment.

Hey, Guts, know how you wanted an edit button? Remember what I told you about why you don't get one?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:03

Because you forgot how to configure it because you're stupid?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:01)


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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, and there's nothing ID can explain that evolution can't. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



It's a lot more complex than that. Bayes Theorem seems to imply that there is no difference between prediction and accommodation, because the conditional probabilities used in Bayes Theorem are temporally neutral.  There have been attempts to build such a distinction into a Bayesian epistemology, but the more common move among Bayesians is to deny the importance of the distinction.  For example, Einstein's Relativity Theory got support from the fact that it correctly implied the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, though that information was known long before Einstein formulated the theory.  I myself am sympathetic to the view that accurate prediction provides more confirmational support than accommodation, but most Bayesians would not agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Revised shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, but I'm cool with that."
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:03)
Because you forgot how to configure it because you're stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many of us have edit buttons, Nelson. You've just demonstrated why newcomers don't get them automatically.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:05



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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, but I'm cool with that."

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



Thats not what I said at all.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:05)


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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, but I'm cool with that."

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



Thats not what I said at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, because that would have entailed more honesty than you're willing to display here.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what are the first 10?

[strikeout]Pussy[/strikeout] (cuz I am tired of Nelson's faggot talk).

Edited so not to abuse the edit function by eliminating a potentially embarassing comment or correct errors.


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:08



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

No, because that would have entailed more honesty than you're willing to display here.

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



No it would directly contradict what i believe.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:08

Don't descend to Guts's level.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:09

lol Steve, maybe you should re-read the beginning pages of these threads where there is insult after insult all directed at TT bloggers. It's a little too late to tell people to take the high ground.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:13

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:08)
 

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

No, because that would have entailed more honesty than you're willing to display here.

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



No it would directly contradict what i believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, Nelson. You can't name any ID predictions and yet you seem fine with this. This seems not to bother you at all.

Yet you said this:

 

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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ol Steve, maybe you should re-read the beginning pages of these threads where there is insult after insult all directed at TT bloggers. It's a little too late to tell people to take the high ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?

 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,16:14

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,16:08)
Don't descend to Guts's level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem.

I don't think any of us can get that low...


Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what are the first ten?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:15

Oh, yeah, we definitely insult you guys when you act ridiculous. But we don't have to act as cretinous as you. I've never gone to TT and called it a 'piece of shit', for instance.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:16



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

Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

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



You didn't even understand what I wrote, thats why you can't respond.

By the way, I only use insults because thats the language that you all speak here. It's the norm. You guys drew first blood.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:17

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,16:15)
Oh, yeah, we definitely insult you guys when you act ridiculous. But we don't have to act as cretinous as you. I've never gone to TT and called it a 'piece of shit', for instance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not, because it's not a piece of shit. I never called AE a piece of shit, I called it's board functions. But now I see that many of the more complex functions are hidden from new users, so now I'll AE an asshole for not giving me all the functions.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:16)


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

Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

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



You didn't even understand what I wrote, thats why you can't respond.

By the way, I only use insults because thats the language that you all speak here. It's the norm. You guys drew first blood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop whining and show us the predictions that you spoke of earlier.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:18

"so now I'll call"
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:18

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,14:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
   
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what are the first ten?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, here's where I think Nelson is now:

"I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what are the first ten?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:16)


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

Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

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



You didn't even understand what I wrote, thats why you can't respond.

By the way, I only use insults because thats the language that you all speak here. It's the norm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will repeat.

Name the dozens. Name ten. Show us how it's done.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys drew first blood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Poor widdle baby. You're up to more than a hundred posts now, the 'faggotry' can't be bothering you all that much.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:21



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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



Where did I say leave me alone?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:21)
 

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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



Where did I say leave me alone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah. Very well then:

New revised Nelson:

"I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. But trust me, I have dozens! Dumbass!"
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:21)


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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



Where did I say leave me alone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again with the dodging.



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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.

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



What predictions were you speaking of?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:24



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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



In fact, this whole sentence is wrong, it's not that it's not important, it's that it raises many issues. Let me just say that when P(B/A) = P(A/B) = P(A/A), then the data A maximally confirm B. because they raise its probability from whatever its prior probability was to one.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:24)


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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



In fact, this whole sentence is wrong, it's not that it's not important, it's that it raises many issues. Let me just say that when P(B/A) = P(A/B) = P(A/A), then the data A maximally confirm B. because they raise its probability from whatever its prior probability was to one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't name ten?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,16:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:21)
Where did I say leave me alone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. Like all trolls, Nelson is only seeking attention. If you read his comments, or ignore them, you will get exactly the same amount of information. Zero.

I'd vote to ignore him. Save your electrons.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:24)


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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



In fact, this whole sentence is wrong, it's not that it's not important, it's that it raises many issues. Let me just say that when P(B/A) = P(A/B) = P(A/A), then the data A maximally confirm B. because they raise its probability from whatever its prior probability was to one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again with the dodging.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What predictions were you speaking of?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:26

I sure can name 10. But like I said it raises many issues.Such as, you can never derive data points from probabilistic theories, but only probabilities of data points
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:26)
I sure can name 10. But like I said it raises many issues.Such as, you can never derive data points from probabilistic theories, but only probabilities of data points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quit stalling.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What predictions were you speaking of?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)
I sure can name 10. But like I said it raises many issues.Such as, you can never derive data points from probabilistic theories, but only probabilities of data points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:29



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

I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.

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



I can name dozens . But I think what you are looking for is a criterion by which to distinguish a theoretical explanation of the data from a mere redescription of it.  Call your criterion the "parameter counting criterion".  I don't believe this is a very good criterion for distinguishing theories from non-theories.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:29)


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

I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.

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



I can name dozens .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet you refuse to name *any*. Imagine that.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:31

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:29)


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

I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.

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



I can name dozens . But I think what you are looking for is a criterion by which to distinguish a theoretical explanation of the data from a mere redescription of it.  Call your criterion the "parameter counting criterion".  I don't believe this is a very good criterion for distinguishing theories from non-theories.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What predictions were you talking about? I'm getting tired of posting this quote time and time again.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:32

Seriously Nelson, I recall you from ARN as an irritant, but not a total jerk. And what is with the nickname "guts?" Guts are long slimy tubes full of shit. Are you really into that much self disclosure?

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:33



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

And yet you refuse to name *any*. Imagine that.

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



It's not that I refuse to name any, it's that is the prior probabilities to which the theorem is applied that determine whether simpler theories are selectively confirmed over more complex theories or whether more complex theories are selectively favored over simpler ones.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:34

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:33)


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

And yet you refuse to name *any*. Imagine that.

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



It's not that I refuse to name any, it's that is the prior probabilities to which the theorem is applied that determine whether simpler theories are selectively confirmed over more complex theories or whether more complex theories are selectively favored over simpler ones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you're refusing to name any. That's painfully obvious.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:34



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

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?

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



Actually there are dozens of successful predictions made by ID.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:35

There is a great, but nauseating, short story by Chuck Palahniuk called "Guts", from his book "Haunted".

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:34)


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

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?

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



Actually there are dozens of successful predictions made by ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But they're secret.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:37



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

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?

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



I already listed them fully, but it was deleted by steve.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:37)


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

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?

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



I already listed them fully, but it was deleted by steve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then it should be no problem for you to list them again, no?

Oh, I forgot. They're secret. And they're not important anyway.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:39



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

But they're secret

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



I keep trying to explain this to you. but you're not understanding. It's not that it's secret.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,16:40

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:37)


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

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?

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



I already listed them fully, but it was deleted by steve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's even better than Dog ate my homework!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:40

That post before last was a joke by the way.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:41

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:40)
That post before last was a joke by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you can name them, and they're not secret, then what's the problem?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:34)


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

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?

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



Actually there are dozens of successful predictions made by ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You cannot even list 10.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:39)


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

But they're secret

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



I keep trying to explain this to you. but you're not understanding. It's not that it's secret.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, Nelson. You have dozens and dozens, but you refuse to list any, because it's not important. But really, you have dozens.

And so on, and so on, and so on.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:45

Guts @ July 06 2008,12:51
When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.

Stevestory @ Posted: July 06 2008,16:02    
As Guts is no doubt aware, IDers like to rewrite the past. They tried to do that here a few times, and so we had to take edit buttons away from new users.

Guts Posted: July 06 2008,16:03    
You're projecting Steve.

~16:55 - Guts deletes his own comment from Telic Thoughts.

And they wonder why people point and laugh at them.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:45

Well, I'm leaving this in the hands of you less timezone-impaired folks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will I wake up to a world where science has been revolutionized? Only time will tell. G'night.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:48

Several of us are checking out. Guts is just tap dancing. He's got nothing to say.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:48



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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:49

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,16:48)
Several of us are checking out. Guts is just tap dancing. He's got nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

Several of us are checking out. Guts is just tap dancing. He's got nothing to say.

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



I'm just bored at the moment. I'll likely get into some more serious AE errors and deceit in the comming days.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:48)
 

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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I'm just trying to explain what's really important. But I just can't get through to you guys! But really, I have dozens!"

[wipes tear]

Nelson, you're a fraud, and we've seen it all before. Toodles.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:53

No I'm not a fraud. Actually i really did explain some fundamental issues lol. Thats the ironic thing.
Posted by: Reed on July 06 2008,16:54

Wow ... Guts, page 6:
   

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

I would be more than happy to debate anywhere you'd like, even on non-neutral venues.

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


... 17 pages of spewing insults and failure to engage in any substantiative discussion ...

Do you think you are fooling anyone ? Heck, just linking to a post that outlines your position would be sufficient to get things rolling, if you were interested in honest discourse.

Even as trolling, it's pretty third rate. Too much repetition, not enough content to draw people in.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:58



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

17 pages of spewing insults and failure to engage in any substantiative discussion

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



That pretty much describes this entire thread.



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

Heck, just linking to a post that outlines your position would be sufficient to get things rolling, if you were interested in honest discourse.

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



I'm not here to defend my position I'm here to point out the lying that is going on here. For example, Frostman has already admitted to lying as a result, so it appears I am effective.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I'm not a fraud. Actually i really did explain some fundamental issues lol. Thats the ironic thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, that we're faggots. Really brilliant work. Enjoy your stay. Somebody explain to Guts that 157,000 blog posts and zero papers is not a scientific revolution. I'm out.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,17:01

steve, we've already been through this, you understand anything about science, so you wouldn't know.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,17:02

don't*
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,17:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:48)
     

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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about one?

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.

[edits for clarity]
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,17:14

Here is an example, Nelson.

Land animals evolved from fish. Land animals are common by about 300 million years ago.

Prediction: Between 400 and 300 million years ago, there are fossils of fish with anatomy in between fish and tetapods.

Result: Ahlberg, P. E., Luksevics, E. & Lebedev, O. 1994. The first tetrapod finds from the Devonian (Upper Famennian) of Latvia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 343, 303-328.

Per E. Ahlberg, Jennifer A. Clack, Ervins Lukshevechk, Henning Blom, Ivars Zupinsh
2008 "Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology" Nature  453, 1199 - 1204 (26 Jun 2008).

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, Farish A. Jenkins
"A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan" Nature  440, 757 - 763 (06 Apr 2006), doi: 10.1038/nature04639

See how easy that is?

Now you do one.



Edited to undo the last edit.


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,17:30

Thanks for the list of ID predictions. That was awesome.


SHOITEHAWK.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,17:38

It's my pleasure
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,17:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:38)
It's my pleasure
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why? Why are you here? You don't want to talk about science or ID, you don't have any response beyond yelling insults or a fourth-form retort (for American readers, that's, um, around 14 years old.).

What are you enjoying so much? Don't you worry that it's making you, your friends and everything you claim to find important look, well... stupid?

R
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,17:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:39)


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

But they're secret

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



I keep trying to explain this to you. but you're not understanding. It's not that it's secret.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this related to a list of Commie sympathizers in the State department?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,17:57

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, Farish A. Jenkins
"A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan" Nature  440, 757 - 763 (06 Apr 2006), doi: 10.1038/nature04639

The famous Tikaalik fossil is particularly interesting for the current discussion because the researchers went to the field location because it matched predicted age and environmental conditions that were predicted to yield this sort of predicted intermeadiate.  

See?  Prediction from theory followed by experiment/obsevation will yield important results, IF there is a theory that is not just a pile of crap.

So, Nelson? Your turn to present one of the dozens (heheh) of ID successes.

Edited to add: Come on Nelson, get with it!


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,17:57

Well, that was fun. I hope Joytard comes next time!
Posted by: Art on July 06 2008,17:59

Geepers, Guts.  Try as you might, you cannot be stupider than joy.  She's had decades of practice, and I suspect you're still in the rookie leagues.

Heck, you haven't yet approached Bradford's pathetic level of argumentation.  You'll need to continue this vacuous evasion for a few years to catch up to him.

And as melt-downs go, yours cannot touch the quality of MikeGene's screen-smokers.

Bottom line - you're still peon fourth class in MikeGene's coterie.  Try to accept your lot in life and get on with things.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,18:01

So that was about 100 people who read Nelson's being spanked.

I hope he enjoyed it.


Posted by: Nerull on July 06 2008,18:57

Oh, wow. Busy programming all weekend and look what I miss.

It's like the kid who knows everything - just ask him. Except when you do he doesn't have an answer to anything. If you stump him, all he can do is spit and bluster and throw insults.

Really, I thought most people progressed from that form of argument by high school. Apparently not.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:02



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

But why? Why are you here?

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



I thought I already made it crystal clear why I am here. I exposed two instances of deceit both from steve and Frostman, and I will continue to do so, even with the science. I'm not here to explain and defend my position, I go to TT and blog for that.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 06 2008,19:02

I'm wondering if Guts is the HIV denier who shows up on other forums.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:06



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

So that was about 100 people who read Nelson's being spanked

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



How was I spanked? I documented two instances of lies about my blog, and one of the liars admitted it. I'd say i'm doing pretty good.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:11

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:02)


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

But why? Why are you here?

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



I thought I already made it crystal clear why I am here. I exposed two instances of deceit both from steve and Frostman, and I will continue to do so, even with the science. I'm not here to explain and defend my position, I go to TT and blog for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are yes... I'll only discuss at my fortress of creobottery where reality based comments get disappeared.

Nice one Guts!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:13



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

Are yes... I'll only discuss at my fortress of creobottery where reality based comments get disappeared.

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



Which ones? If you really feel that way, feel free to take any one of my blogs and critique it here, and I'll respond.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:13)


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

Are yes... I'll only discuss at my fortress of creobottery where reality based comments get disappeared.

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



Which ones? If you really feel that way, feel free to take any one of my blogs and critique it here, and I'll respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Guts, if You feel that way, discuss here, where the ability to edit the history wont be given to you. You're already been found wanting in that regard in the short time you've been here.

ID predictions?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:18

Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,19:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:18)
Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This from a guy who a few hours ago admitted he came here to troll.  LOL
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:21

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:18)
Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a great assertion: Here I am trolling at a blog where I've nearly posted 5000 times. I haven't posted at Telic Tards at all.

You and reality aren't very close, eh?


Why not post here, Guts? At least we have a decent readership and lots of scientists on hand..
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:21

Yes I came here to troll, but in the process , I have a purpose here, which I already accomplished in part.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,20:15)
ID predictions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:48)
       

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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about one?

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:22

lol , he calls me a "Telic Tard" and then says he's not trolling. You're ridiculous.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:21)
Yes I came here to troll, but in the process , I have a purpose here, which I already accomplished in part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a nugget. I'm sorry Guts, being you is more sad than I can imagine.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:23



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

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

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



How do you feel about the fact that your moderator is liar?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:22)
lol , he calls me a "Telic Tard" and then says he's not trolling. You're ridiculous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Argument Regarding Design is a an accepted acronym, according to sources preferred by Telic Tards.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:27

And yet you can't refute a single part of any of my blogs right here in your own board. How retarded is that?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:23)
 

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

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

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



How do you feel about the fact that your moderator is liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your question is non-responsive to my request. Plus it isn't clear what you are referring to, as SteveStory no longer moderates here, and, in any event, < Wesley's > observation regarding Steve's remark is exactly accurate.

That said, Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.

(ETA link.)
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:31



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

Your question is non-responsive to my request. Plus it isn't clear what you are referring to, as SteveStory no longer moderates here, and, in any event, Wesley's observation regarding Steve's remark is exactly accurate.

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



I thought you guys were supposed believe things based on evidence. Ok , I also showed that Frostman lied multiple times in this thread, how do you feel about the fact that you have an obsessive liar here in your ranks and you are doing nothing about it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought you guys were supposed believe things based on evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:37

Actually I did explain some foundational issues that are extremely relevant.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:31)
   

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

Your question is non-responsive to my request. Plus it isn't clear what you are referring to, as SteveStory no longer moderates here, and, in any event, Wesley's observation regarding Steve's remark is exactly accurate.

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



I thought you guys were supposed believe things based on evidence. Ok , I also showed that Frostman lied multiple times in this thread, how do you feel about the fact that you have an obsessive liar here in your ranks and you are doing nothing about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

That said, describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:37)
Actually I did explain some foundational issues that are extremely relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:39



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

I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

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



Like I said before, they don't call this the swamp for nothing.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:41



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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,19:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:41)


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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be sure to link to them, buddy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:39)


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

I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

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



Like I said before, they don't call this the swamp for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They being...?

You, "Mike Gene" Bradford and Joy? Ooooooooh. Endorsement by idiots - not something we want. Last time I looked, your lot where perceived as the religion pushing, tinfoil hat wearing group by the scientific community.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:41)


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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:44



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

Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.

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



lol why don't you critique my blogs then if thats what you believe? Your free from my moderation here, why are you so afraid?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:44)


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

Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.

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



lol why don't you critique my blogs then if thats what you believe? Your free from my moderation here, why are you so afraid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can be arsed to write commentary that wont get through, Guts. All can post here.. something that evidently scares the shit out of you.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:46



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

I can be arsed to write commentary that wont get through, Guts. All can post here.. something that evidently scares the shit out of you.

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



No no, post it here and I'll respond to you. Post your critique here.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:49

You know I really don't mind the rudeness. I couldn't care less about it. It's the dishonesty I mind.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:49)
You know I really don't mind the rudeness. I couldn't care less about it. It's the dishonesty I mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID predictions? thought not.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:53

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:39)
   

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

I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

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



Like I said before, they don't call this the swamp for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would I have feelings about a poster with whom I have no familiarity? You both must be a bit narcissistic if you believe the blogosphere is waiting with bated breath for a resolution of your conflict.

And why would I accept your characterization of that conflict were I interested? As I stated in my original post in this thread, you've come across here as quite an asshole, which doesn't exactly enhance credibility.
  
BTW, were you to dig a bit deeper here you would observe that I have several time objected to the term "liar" as used here, as I feel that it is often misapplied.

That said, describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:57



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

Why would I have feelings about a poster with whom I have no familiarity? You both must be a bit narcissistic if you believe the blogosphere is waiting with bated breath for a resolution of your conflict.

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



I don't get it. I'm asking you for your honest opinion about a regular poster here who has quite obviously continously posted lies about my blog. I am not asking you to resolve my conflict. You telling me that you feel nothing about a person spreading falsehoods about my blog speaks volumes. Another reason why I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For someone with Sig-space..
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 06 2008,20:01

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,11:50)
One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for < some good laughs >, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, < Telic Thoughts. > It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think its time to revise the fundamental premise of this thread and downgrade "Telic Thoughts" to clown car status.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:01

Hows that critique comming Rich? lol
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 06 2008,20:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:57)
Another reason why I'd rather drill a yet another hole in my head than chit chat about biology address any substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fixed that for you.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:04

Jim you should correct the spelling errors in your sig or at least at a sic or something. That is pretty hilarious actually.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:57)


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

Why would I have feelings about a poster with whom I have no familiarity? You both must be a bit narcissistic if you believe the blogosphere is waiting with bated breath for a resolution of your conflict.

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



I don't get it. I'm asking you for your honest opinion about a regular poster here who has quite obviously continously posted lies about my blog. I am not asking you to resolve my conflict. You telling me that you feel nothing about a person spreading falsehoods about my blog speaks volumes. Another reason why I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frostman has 16 posts since joining AtBC in 11/07, many of which concern your inability to reveal publicly what you conceded to him privately, a topic in which I have no investment.

My conclusion is that you are unable to provide the example I've requested.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:07



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

My conclusion is that you are unable to provide the example I've requested.

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



Then your conclusion is mistaken.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:01)
Hows that critique comming Rich? lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post something here about ID, Guts and you'll get a critique. This forum, where posts don't go missing.

Do you think ID is science? Have you used the EF? Which shows ID, redundancy, IC or both? Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

You are an assclown of brobdignanian proportions.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:09



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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



Huh? How did they front-load "Richard Lenski's E-Coli"?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:11

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:07)
 

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

My conclusion is that you are unable to provide the example I've requested.

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



Then your conclusion is mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK. Like you said, we're about evidence. Show me that I am wrong.

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:12

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:09)


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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



Huh? How did they front-load "Richard Lenski's E-Coli"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice to see telic Tards is the vanguard of dynamic ID research.  ???
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:13

Richard thats very cute but please answer my question.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:14

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:13)
Richard thats very cute but please answer my question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's rich! Hahahaha!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:13)
Richard thats very cute but please answer my question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do you mean this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Huh? How did they front-load "Richard Lenski's E-Coli"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If so could you be a bit more specific?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:20

Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:21

You said:



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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



why did who front-load Lenski's E-Coli? How did they front-load it?
Posted by: Zarquon on July 06 2008,20:22

Tard outreach. Just what the world needed.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,20:24

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:02)
 

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

But why? Why are you here?

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



I thought I already made it crystal clear why I am here. I exposed two instances of deceit both from steve and Frostman, and I will continue to do so, even with the science. I'm not here to explain and defend my position, I go to TT and blog for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If what you are recalling about Steve is your incomprehension of what "moderation queue" means, that has already been < exposed > as not establishing what you think it does.


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:28

Wesley,

Please link to the post where Steve retracts his statement that we purposely put him in the moderation queue, if thats what he meant.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:29

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:21)
Yes I came here to troll, but in the process , I have a purpose here, which I already accomplished in part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, if your purpose was to bite the heads off chickens for 12 hours, mission accomplished.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:44)


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

Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.

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



lol why don't you critique my blogs then if thats what you believe? Your free from my moderation here, why are you so afraid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of afraid, you never did give a single one of your 'dozens' of reasons.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:31

yes I did.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup, Nelson knows he has to avoid discussing biology at all costs. In this he is completely typical of the IDC movement.

But Nelson couldn't match our pathetic level of detail if he wanted to, so none of us should be surprised.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
yes I did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah. Not only are your predictions of ID secret, they're now invisible.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:36

Arden can't you read? I gave one already.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:37



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

But Nelson couldn't match our pathetic level if he wanted to, so none of us should be surprised.

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



I'm trying as hard as I can but you guys are pretty pathetic.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:21)
You said:



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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



why did who front-load Lenski's E-Coli? How did they front-load it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who... I R not design detective like you! I don't know how, either. But someone front loaded that after 33,127 generations, it would be able to feed on citrate. Get on it, design detective!


< http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:49)
You know I really don't mind the rudeness. I couldn't care less about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A good thing.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I guess the 'faggotry' does bother you.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:20)
Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're citing an armchair reinterpretation of genuine scientific work pursued by actual professional scientists operating from within the framework of contemporary evo-devo biology.

What I have have requested is a SINGLE example of empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID, yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

I see none of those components in the armchair example you cite.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:42

I started demonstrating against scientology and they are ruthless when it comes to obtaining identity.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,20:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:18)
Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, big troll snatcher guy

Crush me with you totally irrefutable example of a positive demonstration of a successful IDC prediction.  I gave you an example to follow for format.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:43



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

You're citing an armchair reinterpretation

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



It's not a reinterpretation at all.



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

of genuine scientific work pursued by actual professional scientists operating from within the framework of contemporary evo-devo biology.

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



So what? It doesn't matter who did the experiment, what matters is that the data conforms to the prediction.

You see, as trolls, it's a waste of time giving you actual examples because your minds are already made up.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:43)


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

You're citing an armchair reinterpretation

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



It's not a reinterpretation at all.



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

of genuine scientific work pursued by actual professional scientists operating from within the framework of contemporary evo-devo biology.

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



So what? It doesn't matter who did the experiment, what matters is that the data conforms to the prediction.

You see, as trolls, it's a waste of time giving you actual examples because your minds are already made up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm intrigued. Please give me another example from your twelve so I can address my atheist / materialistic worldview.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,20:47

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:41)


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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, that is where you give all the detailed, dozens of ID predictions?

Got a link?

Got a Clue?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:49

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,18:36)
Arden can't you read? I gave one already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean this?

 

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

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

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



You're saying nothing more than "if ID is right, we'd expect frontloading. Hey! And we do find frontloading!" It's equivalent to "If ID is right, we'd expect cases of obvious design. And we do!"

If this is the best of your 'dozens' of predictions, my expectations aren't high.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:51

One thing in general that ID in general predicts is conceptual similarties among biological systems and that these conceptual similarities are there because of good engineering principles, like robustness in bacterial chemotaxis.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:52



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

You're saying nothing more than "if ID is right, we'd expect frontloading. Hey! And we do find frontloading!"

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



No, it's possible that in fact the wnt suite evolved via gene duplication in these lineages or that jellyfish is really as simple as it looks.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:53

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:43)
It's not a reinterpretation at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you give us a quick link or cite back to passages in the original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer?

I gather you can't provide an example of the sort I describe - the sort of work done day in, day out within real sciences.

This would do it: A SINGLE example of empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID, yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,20:53

BTW, I have "debated" Guts on Mike Gene ID, which is about the original subject she knows jack shit about.  It devolved into classic "I-know-what-the-Designer-did", which you can read < here >.  Even when I presented her all the fucking reading material for the "debate," she read none of the literature.  All she did was invent definitions, shift goal posts and pose as an expert.  In other words, she lied.  It's useless to debate Internet poseurs.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,20:57

I have also dealt with this Mike-Gene-ism "good engineering principles" in the past.  Problem is, there isn't a fucking "good engineering principle" that is demonstrably "good" except in an artificially defined context.

Go ahead, list some good engineering principles, Guts.  Show us what engineering principles your Designer used.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:01

Principia you should catch up with the scientific literature. The term "conceptual similarity" is used for this very subject of shared principles with biology and engineering.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,21:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,18:20)
Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is an example of a successful IDC prediction?

Have you people learned nothing in all these years?

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed

The "starting" conditions? Just what were these "starting conditions" you speak of, stranger? I would know more of this new science.

And, these strange conditions you say were "designed?" And how might you distiguish between a designed "starting condition" and one "undesigned?"

... and influenced evolution

Well, as Darwin and many generations of biologists agree, physical conditions do indeed "influence evolution."  Why, we even call it "Natural Selection."   How do you creationists tell natural selection apart from "influenced evolution." Why do you think that "evolution" happens if it is really all from "design?"

How do you find your ass in the morning?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,21:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:01)
Principia you should catch up with the scientific literature. The term "conceptual similarity" is used for this very subject of shared principles with biology and engineering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



uh-huh...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:04

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,20:57)
I have also dealt with this Mike-Gene-ism "good engineering principles" in the past.  Problem is, there isn't a fucking "good engineering principle" that is demonstrably "good" except in an artificially defined context.

Go ahead, list some good engineering principles, Guts.  Show us what engineering principles your Designer used.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your quite wrong, here is a quote from An Introduction to Systems Biology by Uri Alon:



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

A third level of simplicty is th econceptual similarity  of seemingly unrelated systems, a similarity expressed in terms of unifying design principles. ONe such design principle is robustness to component fluctuations: A biological system must work under all possible insults and interferences that come with the inherent properties of the components and the environment.

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,21:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:04)
Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,20:57)
I have also dealt with this Mike-Gene-ism "good engineering principles" in the past.  Problem is, there isn't a fucking "good engineering principle" that is demonstrably "good" except in an artificially defined context.

Go ahead, list some good engineering principles, Guts.  Show us what engineering principles your Designer used.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your quite wrong, here is a quote from An Introduction to Systems Biology by Uri Alon:



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

A third level of simplicty is th econceptual similarity  of seemingly unrelated systems, a similarity expressed in terms of unifying design principles. ONe such design principle is robustness to component fluctuations: A biological system must work under all possible insults and interferences that come with the inherent properties of the components and the environment.

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


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


Hmmm.. natural selection wouldn't select for that, would it?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:16

"Intro level text" bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. Come on Principia you could do better than that.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:16

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:08)
Dr GH:

 

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

That is an example of a successful IDC prediction?

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



Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it doesn't exemplify empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID, yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID. Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,21:18

Let's explore why Uri's "robustness as design principle" is "good".  Tell us, if a biological system works "under all possible insults and interferences" how then how does one remove this system when it becomes useless and detrimental to the organism?  Bacteria are pretty fucking robust organisms.  Yet they kill us by the millions.  And we do the same.  Not very robust.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:19

Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:20



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

But it doesn't exemplify empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID,

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



It doesn't matter. Data is data, if it is good data it'll be found by workers within any theoretical framework.



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

yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID.

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



In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.



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

Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:20

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:19)
Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats that matter steve? You don't like dissent?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:21

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:20)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:16)
"Intro level text" bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. Come on Principia you could do better than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Principia is doing pretty fucking awesome at Mike-Gene-beat downs as far as your shit standards are concerned.  Answer my question if you actually know what you're talking about instead of dragging shit out of your ass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't ask any questions you're just obsessed with spigots or something.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,21:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do unexpected results count against a scientific theory?  Newton didn't expect quantum principles or general relativity.  Is Newton's theory of gravitation wrong?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:26

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do unexpected results count against a scientific theory?  Newton didn't expect quantum principles or general relativity.  Is Newton's theory of gravitation wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say it counts against a scientific theory you twit.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,21:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:26)
Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do unexpected results count against a scientific theory?  Newton didn't expect quantum principles or general relativity.  Is Newton's theory of gravitation wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say it counts against a scientific theory you twit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woo, I'm scared, you called me a twit,  LOL, pussy.

So, you just make general remarks that are completely inconsequential.  Gotcha.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:28

They are far from inconsquential in that they serve to bring about a framework that would better account for data. Sort of like when neo-darwinism came about, it served to improve the theory, it didn't count against it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:30)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already gave one.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:32

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:19)
Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats that matter steve? You don't like dissent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you don't seem very familiar with us. If we went to your blog and said the things you've said today, we would be banned. Here we don't ban. We do move most personal attacks to the Bathroom Wall thread. This isn't an ID blog. There's very little banning and no deleting of comments.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,21:36

Look Nelson, can the bull shit for a minute.  No trolling now. No baiting.  Do you really, honestly believe that your example is a successful IDC prediction?

Be honest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:30)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already gave one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One what? I see no citation of ID motivated research of the sort that I describe - research in which the design specifies in advance a null empirical finding that would place one's theoretical position in jeopardy.

I also see no citation to original authors interpreting their data in light of front-loaded genetic information or any other designed initial conditions.

[edit for clarity]
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:41

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,21:36)
Look Nelson, can the bull shit for a minute.  No trolling now. No baiting.  Do you really, honestly believe that your example is a successful IDC prediction?

Be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:42

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:36)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:30)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already gave one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One what? I see no citation of ID motivated research of the sort that I describe - research in which the design specifies in advance a null empirical finding that would place one's theoretical position in jeopardy.

I also see no citation to original authors interpreting their data in light of front-loaded genetic information or any other designed initial conditions.

[edit for clarity]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave you an example of a prediction. You're just closing your eyes and saying "no no no no no".
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,21:42

Quote (Guts (aka Nelson Alonso) @ July 06 2008,20:28)
Wesley,

Please link to the post where Steve retracts his statement that we purposely put him in the moderation queue, if thats what he meant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Steve said, with added emphasis:

 

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

It appears I've been put in the moderation queue at TT. I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity.

my moderated comment is preserved here:

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



So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

But that brings up an interesting point. Is the moderation queue at TT not an example of "intelligent design", and programmed itself? Good to know that the next time an IDC advocate claims that there are no computer programs that are free of the taint of an intelligent agent.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:43

Actually I gave two examples.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:23)


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

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

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



How do you feel about the fact that your moderator is liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LouFCD is a liar?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:46

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:32)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:19)
Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats that matter steve? You don't like dissent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you don't seem very familiar with us. If we went to your blog and said the things you've said today, we would be banned. Here we don't ban. We do move most personal attacks to the Bathroom Wall thread. This isn't an ID blog. There's very little banning and no deleting of comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve, you are obviously unfamiliar with TT. We rarely ban as well. We do  throw comments to a similar "memory hole" and occasionally make use of the new moderation tool to barr people from threads.

You admit here that you have at one point found the need to ban people. Do you feel you have done so unjustly? Probably not.

But the problem is that every time we ban someone, it doesn't matter that we do it rarely, everytime we ban someone we are accused of censoring when in fact there absolutely nothing to censor. Which is ridiculous and dishonest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:42)
I gave you an example of a prediction. You're just closing your eyes and saying "no no no no no".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I asked for includes a prediction, but I also requested the basic research infrastructure that confers upon the prediction scientific usefulness.

I'm closing my eyes and saying provide an instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:49

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,22:42)
Quote (Guts (aka Nelson Alonso) @ July 06 2008,20:28)
Wesley,

Please link to the post where Steve retracts his statement that we purposely put him in the moderation queue, if thats what he meant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Steve said, with added emphasis:

   

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

It appears I've been put in the moderation queue at TT. I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity.

my moderated comment is preserved here:

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



So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

But that brings up an interesting point. Is the moderation queue at TT not an example of "intelligent design", and programmed itself? Good to know that the next time an IDC advocate claims that there are no computer programs that are free of the taint of an intelligent agent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, yeah, I remember that. I was in some kind of moderation for a few posts. After I commented there was a little message, I believe at the top (?) of my comment, saying it was awaiting moderation or held in moderation or awaiting approval or something. Only happened for 2 or 3 comments. What happened there Guts? Why'd my comment get into a moderation queue?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:49



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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But quite different from lying. Are you now retracting your assertion that Steve was lying, and is a liar?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:52

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:48)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:42)
I gave you an example of a prediction. You're just closing your eyes and saying "no no no no no".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I asked for includes a prediction, but I also requested the basic research infrastructure that confers upon the prediction scientific usefulness.

I'm closing my eyes and saying provide an instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:52)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:

 

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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But quite different from lying. Are you now retracting your assertion that Steve was lying, and is a liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When he retracts his statement I will.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:54

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:46)
Steve, you are obviously unfamiliar with TT. We rarely ban as well. We do  throw comments to a similar "memory hole"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, i know about your memory hole. And if I went over to TT today and left 100 comments like "This board is a piece of shit and Joy is gay and Bradford is scientifically illiterate and Guts is a liar..." etc etc etc I would not end up in the memory hole. I'd be banned. Be honest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:52)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)
 

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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:

 

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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But quite different from lying. Are you now retracting your assertion that Steve was lying, and is a liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When he retracts his statement I will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which brings you full circle - exactly the sort of contingency you employed to avoid doing the right thing vis Frostman.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:56

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You aren't calling TT a creationist site, are you Guts?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:56

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:54)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:46)
Steve, you are obviously unfamiliar with TT. We rarely ban as well. We do  throw comments to a similar "memory hole"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, i know about your memory hole. And if I went over to TT today and left 100 comments like "This board is a piece of shit and Joy is gay and Bradford is scientifically illiterate and Guts is a liar..." etc etc etc I would not end up in the memory hole. I'd be banned. Be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course, we try to foster discussion that won't turn people's stomachs, unlike here.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,21:56

Actually, occasional false positives are expected if Akismet is installed.

Imagine how much misunderstanding and bad feeling might have been shortcut if someone had popped up with that information at the time of the incident.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:57

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:56)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You aren't calling TT a creationist site, are you Guts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol you call us creationists all the time. So you're not going to retract your statement? If not you're still lying.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,21:56)
Actually, occasional false positives are expected if Akismet is installed.

Imagine how much misunderstanding and bad feeling might have been shortcut if someone had popped up with that information at the time of the incident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the moderation queue catches spam words if Akismet is not installed, after I installed Akismet, comments stopped getting caught in the moderation queue and was now being caught by Akismet, although rarely something gets caught by the moderation queue.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:00

I said I ended up in a moderation que. You basically said yeah, it was a software glitch, we know it happens on TT. So you said I'm right. What's to retract.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,22:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:02

This:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:03

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't run away now? You've been asking me all day for a valid prediction and you give me bunk as a response and now you're running away?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:02)
This:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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


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


Which part are you calling a 'lie'?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:04

That we purposely put you in the moderation queue. Thats not true, when we found your comment in the queue, we passed it through.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:05

So both the "moderation queue" and Akismet can hold up the appearance of a comment. A commenter without administrative access to the blog is supposed to distinguish between those two in what way?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:06

where did i say that you 'purposely' put me in a moderation queue?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:04)
That we purposely put you in the moderation queue. Thats not true, when we found your comment in the queue, we passed it through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so you admit TT put me in a moderation queue? That's a funny way to demand a retraction.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,22:05)
So both the "moderation queue" and Akismet can hold up the appearance of a comment. A commenter without administrative access to the blog is supposed to distinguish between those two in what way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everyone else does. when a comment is caught, they usually ask for moderator assistance. Furthermore, instead of immediately comming here and crying censorship, he could have simply asked what was happening.

The knee jerk reaction just supports mindset of anti-ID activists, they know that censorship makes a blog look bad , so they are desperate to see it, even when it's not there.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,22:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:03)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't run away now? You've been asking me all day for a valid prediction and you give me bunk as a response and now you're running away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have professional obligations, first thing in the morning, through which I put food on my family. Got to take care of myself.

I'll look for your example of ID research meeting my extremely basic description of the logic of scientific research mid-morning tomorrow.

Over and out.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:08

Nelson linked to < this comment > earlier as what he is so het up about.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:08

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:06)
where did i say that you 'purposely' put me in a moderation queue?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve come on:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



You were accusing us of specifically holding and judging your comment in the queue.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:09

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:07)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:03)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:01)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't run away now? You've been asking me all day for a valid prediction and you give me bunk as a response and now you're running away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have professional obligations, first thing in the morning, through which I put food on my family. Got to take care of myself.

I'll look for your example of ID research meeting my extremely basic description of the logic of scientific research mid-morning tomorrow.

Over and out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Extremely basic? Your request contain unnecessary qualifiers, it's too complex!
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:10

can you point me to a comment where i said you purposely put me in a moderation queue or not?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:11

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:10)
can you point me to a comment where i said you purposely put me in a moderation queue or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just did, and Wesley linked to it. I take it you're not going to retract?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:14

Looks like all I said specifically about Telic Thoughts is that it appeared I was put into a moderation queue. You basically admitted as much. So go demand a retraction from some other piece of shit board with lots of faggotry, in your words.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:15

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:14)
Looks like all I said specifically about Telic Thoughts is that it appeared I was put into a moderation queue. You basically admitted as much. So go demand a retraction from some other piece of shit board with lots of faggotry, in your words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So in other words, you're still a liar.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:18

Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,22:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:41)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,21:36)
Look Nelson, can the bull shit for a minute.  No trolling now. No baiting.  Do you really, honestly believe that your example is a successful IDC prediction?

Be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you are too fucking stupid, or too dishonest to be bothered with any more.
Posted by: JAM on July 06 2008,22:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:20)
Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nelson, you're scientifically illiterate. Your "prediction" is fraudulent, as it is merely a restatement of your hypothesis. A real prediction is about what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it.

The point is to do all the interpretation before we gather the data. Of course, pseudoscientific frauds like you neither gather data nor make any real predictions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So when during evolution did this hypothetical frontloading of Wnt (it's [=it is] capitalized for a reason) genes occur? That's a testable hypothesis, and one that my hypothesis (you are a fraud and at some level you know it) predicts you'll run away from.

BTW, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but you appear to be fundamentally illiterate. Can't you distinguish between the possessive pronoun "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction (it's)?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:20

Anytime you want to show where I said TT purposely put me in a moderation queue, you're welcome to do so. Since it seems you can't, I'm out of the discussion.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:21

If anyone wants to go to Telic Thoughts and rewrite Guts's comments to refer to them instead of us, let us know how long you last.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:21

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:18)
Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve is in fact a liar. Here is the comment that he won't retract:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

Instead of doing the right thing and admitting that he made a mistake, he is now playing games pretending not to understand his own post.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:22

...before they purposely put you in the moderation queue.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:22

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:18)
Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve is in fact a liar. Here is the comment that he won't retract:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

Instead of doing the right thing and admitting that he made a mistake, he is now playing games pretending not to understand his own post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw the comment, and see no evidence that he is a liar.

Support or retract.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:25

Honorable Lou: I agree that Guts is violating the preexisting rules against making completely false accusations, but I ask that that the rule be temporarily suspended, on account of how bad he's making himself look here. He's doing our work for us.

(Guts, in case you're wondering, when you said 'the moderator is a liar', you were accusing Lou FCD of lying. He's the moderator here. I used to be.)
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:25

Quote (JAM @ July 06 2008,22:20)

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


JAM:


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

Nelson, you're scientifically illiterate. Your "prediction" is fraudulent, as it is merely a restatement of your hypothesis. A real prediction is about what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it.

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



No it doesn't.
 


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

So when during evolution did this hypothetical frontloading of Wnt (it's [=it is] capitalized for a reason) genes occur? That's a testable hypothesis, and one that my hypothesis (you are a fraud and at some level you know it) predicts you'll run away from.

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



The hypothesis expected the ancient suite of wnt genes would be present already, further research would have to be done to know exactly which ones can be traced further back but that key genes would be able to be traced back.



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

BTW, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but you appear to be fundamentally illiterate. Can't you distinguish between the possessive pronoun "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction (it's)?

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



And you are incredibly pedantic, which is why no one with any sense takes you seriously.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:27

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:25)
Honorable Lou: I agree that Guts is violating the preexisting rules against making completely false accusations, but I ask that that the rule be temporarily suspended, on account of how bad he's making himself look here. He's doing our work for us.

(Guts, in case you're wondering, when you said 'the moderator is a liar', you were accusing Lou FCD of lying. He's the moderator here. I used to be.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve looks like they're close to banning me and quite unjustly , as you know that the statement in your post is not true. See what I mean? The only reason they won't ban me is because you know if they do, it proves my point, so you're telling them not to. How delicious.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:22)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:18)
Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve is in fact a liar. Here is the comment that he won't retract:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

Instead of doing the right thing and admitting that he made a mistake, he is now playing games pretending not to understand his own post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw the comment, and see no evidence that he is a liar.

Support or retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I will not retract, the post contains a falsehood and steve won't retract, so he is in fact a liar.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:29

Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:30

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:32

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,23:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In deference to my esteemed predecessor, I'll withdraw the demand for the moment, as you are the one who stands falsely accused.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:33

What I'd be interested in knowing is what that first accusation of "deception" Nelson had was on about if he was concerned about the "purposely" thing. What would the current presence of a comment on TT have to do with that?

It just looks to me that Nelson is determined that "deception" must be established, and his first try having gone nowhere conveniently invented a new issue to be upset over.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:34

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mind boggles at the utter disconnect from reality of the average creationist.

You, guts, are beyond the pale.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further, I wouldn't ban you.  I have other tools at my disposal.

You should ask Ftk about them.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:37

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,22:33)
What I'd be interested in knowing is what that first accusation of "deception" Nelson had was on about if he was concerned about the "purposely" thing. What would the current presence of a comment on TT have to do with that?

It just looks to me that Nelson is determined that "deception" must be established, and his first try having gone nowhere conveniently invented a new issue to be upset over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

What I'd be interested in knowing is what that first accusation of "deception" Nelson had was on about if he was concerned about the "purposely" thing.

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



I thought he was saying we deleted his comment. If you look at the post directly after he also wants us to "grow a pair". That post doesn't make sense if Steve was not accusing us of holding every comment for judgement.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:37)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further, I wouldn't ban you.  I have other tools at my disposal.

You should ask Ftk about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have tools at my blog as well that doesn't require bannishment, and yet I still get accussed of censorship for using them. So it would only prove my point as well.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:37)
I thought he was saying we deleted his comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He said no such thing.  If that's what you thought, you should take up a reading comprehension course.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:38

Nelson, go read the board rules. You'll see this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you don't just go around calling people liars when you have no evidence. I appealed for temporary special treatment for you because your behavior today is astonishingly bad, and I think we want people to see that.

(That's actually why I went to TT today to alert you about this 'impersonation'. I didn't think you were being impersonated, I wanted some of your TT buddies to come over here and watch you act like this. Why Mike Gene associates himself with the likes of you and Bradford I have no idea)
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:39

see if they put my TT account into moderation---purposeful--moderation now.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:37)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further, I wouldn't ban you.  I have other tools at my disposal.

You should ask Ftk about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have tools at my blog as well that doesn't require bannishment, and yet I still get accussed of censorship for using them. So it would only prove my point as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that anything like "efficient adaptation proves design and so does inefficient adaptation"?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:40

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:38)
Nelson, go read the board rules. You'll see this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you don't just go around calling people liars when you have no evidence. I appealed for temporary special treatment for you because your behavior today is astonishingly bad, and I think we want people to see that.

(That's actually why I went to TT today to alert you about this 'impersonation'. I didn't think you were being impersonated, I wanted some of your TT buddies to come over here and watch you act like this. Why Mike Gene associates himself with the likes of you and Bradford I have no idea)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence. You said that we show insecurity because we hold comments in moderation for judgement. That you won't retract this silly statement makes you a liar.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:41

Alright, I'm off to the UD thread. Have a good one. Guts, stop lying about people or it'll catch up with you.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:45

See you later liar.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:46

I suspect "Mike Gene / Julie Thomas" doesn't have a large pool of candidates. For instance, I don't think David Heddle would jump on the TT bandwagon, at least not now. Three years ago, he might have, had he been offered the chance.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,22:47

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:48

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and it's invisible.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:49

Gene is really not doing so well. The Amazon sales figures show that his book is moving like a copy a month. Okay okay I'm off to the UD thread. I'm waaaay behind over there.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:50

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and it's invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is right here, it's been linked to multiple times:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:51

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:49)
Gene is really not doing so well. The Amazon sales figures show that his book is moving like a copy a month. Okay okay I'm off to the UD thread. I'm waaaay behind over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow you've been following that? That proves even more that you're obsessed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,22:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:45)
See you later liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meeeeeooooooowwwww....
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:52

I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,22:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:51)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:49)
Gene is really not doing so well. The Amazon sales figures show that his book is moving like a copy a month. Okay okay I'm off to the UD thread. I'm waaaay behind over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow you've been following that? That proves even more that you're obsessed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for coming and by your own admission trolling on our board to tell us we're obsessed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,22:53

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,22:53

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:48)
     
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
         
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that and it's invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, let me see if I can predict his proof here based on his past 'scientific' performance.

Nelson Proves Steve Told a Lie:

1) if Steve told a lie, that makes Steve a liar.

2) Steve told a lie

3) therefore, Steve is a liar!


USA! USA! USA!
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,23:46)
I suspect "Mike Gene / Julie Thomas" doesn't have a large pool of candidates. For instance, I don't think David Heddle would jump on the TT bandwagon, at least not now. Three years ago, he might have, had he been offered the chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  Heddle's too honest.  Witness his continuing evisceration of Dembski and his ilk for their dishonest practices, shell games, and general ignorance.

I don't want to speak for him, but my impression is that if Nelson here is representative of the whole of TT, Heddle would have none of them.

Just my impression.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:50)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and it's invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is right here, it's been linked to multiple times:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And again, what you're linking to does not support your accusation of dishonesty.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,22:57

I doubt that Nelson will be banned, much to his disappointment. Sorry, Nelson you are 1) not significant, and 2) an excellent creato chew toy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,22:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:54)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,23:46)
I suspect "Mike Gene / Julie Thomas" doesn't have a large pool of candidates. For instance, I don't think David Heddle would jump on the TT bandwagon, at least not now. Three years ago, he might have, had he been offered the chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  Heddle's too honest.  Witness his continuing evisceration of Dembski and his ilk for their dishonest practices, shell games, and general ignorance.

I don't want to speak for him, but my impression is that if Nelson here is representative of the whole of TT, Heddle would have none of them.

Just my impression.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the 'theory' I was most attached to was primarily championed by the likes of Nelson, Joy, Dave Scot, and William Dembski, I'd find it incredibly demoralizing. I'm sure it's no fun for Heddle.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:58

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please learn to understand the words you read.

You were never in danger of being banned.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:58

Naah, all you said was that "I'm not going to respond to you waaaa". So that's a horrible explanation.

Also, I'm quite significant, so significant, that I was about to be banned, the only reason I wasn't was that steve knew it would prove my point.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:58

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,23:57)
I doubt that Nelson will be banned, much to his disappointment. Sorry, Nelson you are 1) not significant, and 2) an excellent creato chew toy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:59

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:58)
Naah, all you said was that "I'm not going to respond to you waaaa". So that's a horrible explanation.

Also, I'm quite significant, so significant, that I was about to be banned, the only reason I wasn't was that steve knew it would prove my point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is English not your first language, Nelson?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:59

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:58)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please learn to understand the words you read.

You were never in danger of being banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said retract or support , you rejected my support, and you said it was in violation of the rules. You only stopped because Steve asked you to suspend them. Are you going to lie now too?
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:59)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:58)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:56)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please learn to understand the words you read.

You were never in danger of being banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said retract or support , you rejected my support, and you said it was in violation of the rules. You only stopped because Steve asked you to suspend them. Are you going to lie now too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do the words "I have other tools at my disposal" ring any bells in that empty head of yours?
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:01

Ftk.  Does the acronym Ftk help?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,23:02

It doesn't matter when I use other tools, they still call it banning.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,23:04

The lesson learned this weekend is quite clear.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:58)
Naah, all you said was that "I'm not going to respond to you waaaa". So that's a horrible explanation.

Also, I'm quite significant, so significant, that I was about to be banned, the only reason I wasn't was that steve knew it would prove my point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW! GO, TELEPATH/ PRECOG.... USE YOURTARD POWERS FOR GOOD!!! FIND BIN LADEN! CRUSH THE TALIBAN!!! USE YOUR ESP FOR GOOD!!!!!!111111oneoneeleven.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:07

Quote (Guts @ July 07 2008,00:02)
It doesn't matter when I use other tools, they still call it banning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because you're a dishonest lying coward who does ban people, Nelson.

You're a small man with a small spine and a small mind.

Pitiable, but not significant.

Laughable, but not a threat to science, for certain.

An ant in a hurricane, full of sound and fury, signifying impotence (with apologies to the Bard).  But yours is not a tale told by an idiot; rather, starring one.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:10

O/T the original may be the first literary passage concerning Nihilism.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,00:10)
O/T the original may be the first literary passage concerning Nihilism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Thanks, Rich. I did not know that.  Got some link love for me?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:20

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,23:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,00:10)
O/T the original may be the first literary passage concerning Nihilism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Thanks, Rich. I did not know that.  Got some link love for me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes... but what's the point?   :D

< http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/nihilism.htm >


or perhaps not:

< http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolssystems/p/nihilism.htm >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The basic principles which underlie nihilism existed long before there was a term that attempted to describe them as a coherent whole. Most of the basic principles can be found in the development of ancient skepticism among the ancient Greeks. Perhaps the original nihilist was Gorgias (483-378 BCE) who is famous for having said: “Nothing exists. If anything did exist it could not be known. If it was known, the knowledge of it would be incommunicable.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,23:20

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:58)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,23:57)
I doubt that Nelson will be banned, much to his disappointment. Sorry, Nelson you are 1) not significant, and 2) an excellent creato chew toy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is this the low level that Mike Gene's crowd has sunk to? I recall just a few years ago that some pro-science people held Mike Gene out as an "exception" among the ID creationist scrum.  Rather like how Kurt Wise was lauded as an "honest YEC" because he admitted that his insistance on a young earth was not supported by any evidence- only his literalist interpretation of Genesis.

In psychiatry we called this delusion,  one of the key symptoms of psychosis.

PS: Nelson, you and Ed Bryton like to call me an alcoholic. I do like to drink beer, wine and single malt scotch. At the moment I am enjoying a particularly pleasant Merlot. Unlike either of you two birds-of-a-feather, I have professional experience in the treatment of alcoholism, and publications in the same. For the record- I am not an alcoholic. I am sufficiently well known on the "intertubenets" that a lawsuit for defamation could not be brought ( I checked). So bullshit all you want, you are still a dickwad. (Is "putz" more delicate? There are also Mayan terms, "Kep iyung" or the Samoan, "O' Kunga Fiki.")
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:25

Thanks Rich,

I was specifically referring to that being the first literary reference, though.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:27

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,23:25)
Thanks Rich,

I was specifically referring to that being the first literary reference, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. I know. I googled hard, but nothing. I guess its there to be falsified!
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,23:30

Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:33

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone else I think..

< http://www.machineguts.com/about.htm >

Phhhwwwwooooooaaarrr!
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,23:46

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:30)
Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always hated those marshmallow bunnies.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 06 2008,23:49

Quick replay if I may as an innocent bystander.

Frostman posts a series of revealing email exchanges here that
show that Nelson (AKA Guts) backed up  the deletion of an accusation of quotemining on the TT blog.  

Guts shows up and starts off with the very obvious intention of trying to provoke mistreatment by moderators here by being as obnoxious as possible, no success. Makes wild claims about being able to debate science stuff. Bobs and weaves for some dozens of posts, heckles, insults, etc. etc. No success, doesn't get moderated or banned.

Pinned by repeated requests finally cites a post-diction of general relativity that accurately calculated the precession of the perahelion of mercury as a prediction. Duh. Never mentions the fact that general relativity predicted gravitational abberation of light. A true prediction. Verified, real science.

Pinned again much later finally cites a postdiction relevant to biology that would not even have been possible without all of the biological science that has been done in the past 5 decades and claims this is somehow predicted by ID.

Apparently reads the boards rules and decides to take a tack that can lead to banning by making false accusations. Epic fail.
Troll behavior already acknowledged.

So the actual question here is something like this, Frostman made an accusation on TT that someone quotemined. His accusation was dissapeared and all subsequent comments by him were likewise edited. By Guts. Guts comes here to try to show that this forum is sleazy, therefore his is not.

Epic fail.

All he has shown is that he is a petulant prig.

I would laugh if I did not cry, a mind is a terrible thing to waste on superstition and lies.
Posted by: JAM on July 07 2008,00:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:25)
 
Quote (JAM @ July 06 2008,22:20)

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


JAM:
   

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

Nelson, you're scientifically illiterate. Your "prediction" is fraudulent, as it is merely a restatement of your hypothesis. A real prediction is about what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it.

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


No it doesn't.

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


Is English not your primary language? The word "does" wasn't in my explanation of basic scientific practice.

Presuming you meant, "No it ISn't," it is. Here's an example from evolutionary biology:
< http://tinyurl.com/5n7sw3 >

Here's one from virology:
< http://www.citeulike.org/group/3378/article/2365912 >

Here's one from ecology:
< http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1388440 >

Here's one from economics:
< http://tinyurl.com/5whupl >

This is as basic as it gets, and it's beyond you.
 
   

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

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

So when during evolution did this hypothetical frontloading of Wnt (it's [=it is] capitalized for a reason) genes occur? That's a testable hypothesis, and one that my hypothesis (you are a fraud and at some level you know it) predicts you'll run away from.

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



The hypothesis expected the ancient suite of wnt genes would be present already, further research would have to be done to know exactly which ones can be traced further back but that key genes would be able to be traced back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson, you're a coward. No further research is needed to formulate a testable hypothesis, something that you and "Mike Gene" are afraid to do because you know full well that you are pseudoscientific frauds.

Hypothesis: frontloading was performed on a common ancestor of cnidaria and bilateria before the divergence of porifera.

Prediction: porifera will have the expansion of Wnt genes.

It's easy--all it takes is a little bit of intellectual courage.

   

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

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

BTW, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but you appear to be fundamentally illiterate. Can't you distinguish between the possessive pronoun "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction (it's)?

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



And you are incredibly pedantic, which is why no one with any sense takes you seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is pretty funny coming from someone who thought that a sig should include "[sic]" when we all know the point of it.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 07 2008,00:11

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:30)
Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's see if I can make a gross response, but not really so disgusting that you actually see into some of the nasty human corners I have worked in.

Got it! I have a toenail fungus!

Whoowhoo.

Except that it evolved. And I try to kill it.

I kill things other things too; fish especially, but today a rat. Oh, that is just a selection pressure.

Dang, Nelson.  Evolution is everywhere.  Is that why your head is so deeply buried in the special warm dark place?


Posted by: Bob O'H on July 07 2008,00:33

I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?

I'm guessing that Guts still hasn't posted any science.  But I can't be bothered to wade through all of this to check.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 07 2008,00:36

To Dr. GH

I too noticed that bit of character asassination by gutless  early on in this day's thread . It is a classic example of blaming the victim though one could argue whether we are victims or not.  After all, do we not have "free will"? Are we not entitled to poison ourselves if we see fit to do so because it suits our attitude towards the absurdity of life? I have a strong fondness for burboun whiskey. But I can drink scotch whiskey in a pinch.

My mentor in school was a serious drinker and he had problems with it, but he was one of the most brilliant petrologists I have ever known.

Ad hominem at its best.

One is reminded of the sage observations of G.B Shaw -  "Martyrdom, sir, is what these people like: it is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability."

Gutless came here to make himself out as a martyr. Instead he has built for himself a monument of incredible stupidity. He's a buffoon. He probably thinks that there is no toxic dose of di-hydrogen monoxide.. He'll have to google that before he responds.

Cheers mate,
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2008,00:36

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 07 2008,00:33)
I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?

I'm guessing that Guts still hasn't posted any science.  But I can't be bothered to wade through all of this to check.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap. I broke 5000. I was going to do somfink speshul two. consider yourselves spared.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 07 2008,00:47

Bob 'oh

No science, just bleating.

Dr. G.H.

Something I did not address, bunnies.

There was a time when bunnies were contrived to be very scantilly clad young women acting as servers in "playboy clubs" scattered across the hinterlands of the U.S. of A. So a fixation on same is not necessarily a bad thing assuming that connection.

Just trying to help out.... :-)
Posted by: RupertG on July 07 2008,02:45

(blinks in the Monday morning light. Reads thread.)

Was there any purpose or design to what just happened? Perhaps there's some sort of test we could apply...

R
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,02:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,01:36)
Oh crap. I broke 5000. I was going to do somfink speshul two. consider yourselves spared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 07 2008,02:56

Oh, it's

a) Possibly the worst ID "prediction" ever squeezed out of Guts (Btw, what with all the DNA sequenced now Guts you should be able to research this all on your own from your armchair - how's that going?)

b) A few more hits on google for people looking to see exactly how they work. There's no hiding from the great indexer!

Guts, gotta try harder for the banniation next time.

Don't worry however Guts, I feel a mutual new friend is getting ready to register at TT to ask you about and link to your predictions here, make sure everybody is aware of your requests.
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,03:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,01:36)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 07 2008,00:33)
I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?

I'm guessing that Guts still hasn't posted any science.  But I can't be bothered to wade through all of this to check.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap. I broke 5000. I was going to do somfink speshul two. consider yourselves spared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The real creationists here, like FtK and AFDave, went for thousands of comments. Despite Guts's 100 or so comments today, I doubt Guts has the stamina to match them. As several people pointed out, he seems to be stressing out that he wasn't banned already. And no, he didn't post any science. Blogging is all IDers can actually do. They can't seem to do any science.
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,03:19

Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,03:23

I remember when I started this thread last year. I'd read a few "Mike Gene" comments and TT seemed therefore to be distinctly better than the usual creationist sites like UD. People warned me. TT is just as dumb, they said, they just do a better job superficially hiding it.

Well, I see now what they were talking about.

Edit: 'now' instead of 'know'. Dur.


Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on July 07 2008,03:55

Quote (stevestory @ July 07 2008,03:19)
Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me about it. I've been really trying to find new Finnish creationists, but looks like they've been raptured somewhere. Overwhelming Evidence is as busy as my blog. Not very flattering for Dr Dr D and Co.
Posted by: RupertG on July 07 2008,04:06