Joined: Aug. 2005
Just thought I'd share:
Do you understand that you have just played a low blow, a snide personality instead of addressing the issue you must face?
At this stage, I have to expect such behaviour from you.
You are associated with and have tried to justify malicious, invidious association of principled objection to gross sexual immorality and utter perversion — including now the agenda to pervert the foundational social institution, the family — with nazism, for me and for ever so many others. Remember, it was your ilk who dragged this into issues unrelated, in order to taint and polarise. For months, despite correction you have been enabling this, along with too many others at TSZ. (Onlookers, cf. my recent comment on this scarlet letter tactic being used by various extremists to rob people of livelihood, conscience and more, here. Note onward links, including this on the “my genes made me do it” pseudoscientific talking point.)
Then, you have resorted to slanderous false accusations of fraud, by trying the outrageous tactic of characterising the concept, complex, specified information — something as commonplace as posts in this thread — as “bogus.”
I simply point out that you have also consistently — and in the face of repeated. cogent corrections, willfully and so deceitfully — used strawman distortions of design theory constructs and concepts, the better to portray and knock down a caricature falsely projected as though it were a true and fair view. In this, by and large, you have carried forward the sorts of willful misrepresentations too often resorted to by chief critics of design theory, such as the NCSE. The “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” talking point used to motivate treating an issue that pivots on inductive reasoning on the past of origins in light of traces and reliable causes of such effects as though it were a suspect political ploy, is particularly evident.
In short, you have been only too willing to enable and carry forward the Dawkins smear that would characterise those who beg to differ with his sophomoric evolutionary materialism, as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
I have had enough, once you crossed the further threshold of pretending as though the use of outing tactics, career busting and threats — in my case targetting uninvolved members of my family including my children, is something you can easily brush aside and distance yourself from as though it is not an integral part of the pattern of ruthless and utterly uncivil tactics of the movement you have associated yourself with.
The good cop bad cop enabling and manipulating game gets very old very fast, and just because you have not yourself participated in the worst features of the bad cop side, does not leave you innocent of enabling and egging on behaviour.
The lot of you have zero credibility at this point, and step by step reveal a cold, reptilian ferocity driven by an underlying malice that needs to be faced for what it is: out of control cold anger rooted in an agenda that intends to get its way with our civilisation at any cost. An agenda that has subverted science through ideological distortions: a priori evolutionary materialism and scientism, in support of radical secularism and licence leading to undermining of education, law, policy, public morality and liberty — yes, when people’s livelihoods, careers and families are being unjustly threatened and when people’s children are threatened [cf here on a case with the US NAS and NSTA which was used to embed into education a false and destructive radical redefinition of science], this is a threat to liberty — itself.
So, AF, I think you need to seriously think again about both what you have been directly doing and what you have been enabling and going along with in a perverse good cop bad cop game. (The same holds for EL et al.)
To understand just how corrosive such tactics ultimately are, ask yourselves why it is that there are entire sub cultures and communities across our civilisation who do not trust ANYONE associated with law enforcement.
A big part of the answer is the taint spread across all such because there have been too many rounds of enabling of bad cop behaviour by so called good cops. In the end, enablers cannot escape that taint, and right now that is what you are — for cause — facing. The taint of good cop bad cop corrupts the whole movement they are associated with, and ends up causing utter polarisation and breakdown.
Just take a moment to understand how say Sewell’s trials over addressing censorship and intimidation in academic publishing looks in the light of the patterns we have been seeing. Does anyone doubt that had he not been a long since established academic, he would have gone the way of Gonzalez et al, complete with blame the victim tactics?
Do you BEGIN to understand the taint, the gangrene that is spreading?
Opportunity for dialogue here?