RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: I was Booted From uncommon Descent, But Not For What I Wrote There!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,07:20   

This is too funny. Dave Scott is the Dembski worshipper in charge at www.uncommondecent.com now and he's obviously ban happy.

But what cracks me up is he banned me today, NOT for what I said on uncommon descent (I have never criticized IDC, Dembski or anyone at that site nor have I ever argued with anyone there) but for my opinions expressed at PT. I said some naughty things about the theologian William Dembski and the brain washing sunday school classes he teaches at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary.

So, at uncommon descent you get banned for what you write anywhere, not just what you say on uncommondescent.

I suspect soon they will ban people for having naughty thoughts about the theologian we call William Dembski.

Anyhow, when I went to www.uncommondescent.com this morning and saw the thread where Mr Scott had banned me I laffed so hard I spewed coffee all over my keyboard. He even links to the offending PT comment I made on PT (which is well worth a read).

It is very funny, check it out. -> Mr Christopher Is No Longer With Us



.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,07:45   

Priceless - this means you can booted off Uncommon Descent without going there and risk inflating Bill's sitemeter.

I wonder if I put a post on the 'Pandas' thread and say that I agree with you in every respect - then I can get 'banned' too?

Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer is put in charge of the football team -the episode finishes with Homer repeating 'You're cut'; and you're cut etc.........

Are their no limits to DaveScots' megalomania???

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,07:49   

DaveScot aint nothin' but a punk.

Did I just get booted?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,08:02   

Well I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with old Dave in this thread where I questioned the motives of the governor of my own state.  I think I did it in a very appropriate manner, you judge for yourself.  

It appears another unwritten rule at uncommondescent is you cannot question the motives of your own governor if Dave Scott happens to like that governor

Leave it to a Red State to come through in time of need



Simply too funny!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,09:27   

Welcome to the club Mr Christopher.

Mind you, I managed to get booted from Uncommon Dissent four or five times (It's a bit vague because mane posts were subsequently deleted and I didn't start taking screenshots straight away). It does reflect badly on ID proponents that they feel unable to sustain genuine dialogue with critics.

Telic Thoughts and ISCID are prone to the same knee jerk banning of unwelcome posters.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,10:24   

Once I saw Keiths get banned for disaggreeing with DaveScot, I was pissed.  Keith was probably the most patient poster I've ever seen.  I flat out called the blog a sham (comment #45), and yet, still no boot for me.  I don't plan on reading that crappy site anymore.  Who wants to read a bunch of morons aggreeing?  I had to use FeederBottom as a handle, as Cogzoid saw the axe for previous naysaying.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,11:55   

I too thought Keiths was a polite and patient poster. His time at Dembski's blog was bound to be limited, because he made the regular sycophants appear to be such IDiots. Maybe he'll call in at PT, (or perhaps we already know him by another name).

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,12:16   

I have seen Dave "I am warning you" Scott ban two people this week and they are big time ID supporters.  Neither were being jerks or doing anything that gave reason for their ban.  In fact I was going to write one of them an email.

Made me laff seeing him pull out the ban baseball bat.  When the intelligent design creationism cult starts eating their own you have to laff.

I suspect Dembski doesn't mind Dave pushing people around.  I sense Dembski is probably cut from the same authoritarian cloth.  Dembski is a sunday school teacher at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  He teaches religious subjects to people who already have deeply held religious beliefs but their beliefs and Demsbkis class subjects cannot be proven right or wrong.  In that environment the guy with the most power is the guy who holds the truth in his hand.  

I imagine Dembski loves teaching sunday school class at SBTS.  No one dare question him there.  Dave has the same thing going for him at uncommon poop.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,12:26   

If it was Benjii you want to contact, I have come across him here

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,13:01   

Hey it gets better, Dave Scott admits he scans the internet looking for posters at uncommon poop who might say naughty things about the uncommon poop blog or naughty things about Demsbki, chief intelligent design creationism theologian.

Dave Scott Is Watching You

I feel like I owe them an admission fee for the free entertainment I am getting.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,15:32   

This is unbelievable. DaveScot is posting threats on Pharyngula


#57296: DaveScot 01/10  at  05:55 PM
Those of you that may not know, I help to run Uncommon Descent, Dr. Dumbsk's blog on Intelligent design.I just wanted to let you know that we are watching you rubes here and at the Panda's Thumb. If you are found making smarmy comments about Dr. Dumbski or disparaging ID you will be summarily banned from Uncommon Descent. I run a tight ship and I will not tolerate two-faced phonies.


(Vowels added back in, some errors may have occurred)

  
stevestory



Posts: 11085
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2006,16:09   

ahahahhahahaaha. I know wes doesn't like bad language, but there's no other way to say this. DaveScot is a dipshit.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5118
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,05:05   

Re "(Vowels added back in, some errors may have occurred)"
Oh, like a certain proper name being misspelled two different ways? ;)

Henry

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,05:59   

Sorry, Henry. Now you point it out, that should have been Dimbski :D

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,06:12   

stevestory wrote:
Quote
ahahahhahahaaha. I know wes doesn't like bad language, but there's no other way to say this. DaveScot is a dipshit.

Mr. Story, I'm just a dumb hillbilly who needs sharpies like you to keep me straight, but I sense a tension between your dislike of DaveScot's high-handed ways and this statement:
Quote
Oh lord, a troll hath invaded my lovely thread. Be happy Wes doesn't provide thread authors here the ability to do maintenance, Paley, because I'd delete every worthless thing you wrote. Go away.

I also seem to remember another poster threatening to run "rednecks" off the board whenever they caused trouble (i.e. by arguing hard-to-refute positions), and then repeatedly posting offensive cartoons next to one "redneck's" posts. With only three posters complaining. In evo land, all people are equal - but some are more equal than others, ah guess. :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,06:44   

You're still posting, Mr P.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,06:58   

Alan Fox said:
Quote
You're still posting, Mr P.

That's true; gotta give credit where credit's due. God bless the Wes!*



*As well as the other mods.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,08:04   

Your past comments will come back to haunt you 'Ghost' of Paley.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11085
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,12:48   

I would delete everything you wrote. And everything Charlie Wagner wrote. And Robert O'Brien. And that's about it. In other words, Panda's Thumb has banned about 5 people in its 2 year existence. I would have banned probably around 9. And Dembski and company would have banned over a hundred.

You may be a hillbilly, but nobody said you had to be stupid enough to confuse those two styles.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11085
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,12:52   

Oh and Dave Heddle and Carol Clouser. And that's it. By comparison, DaveScot is banning people all the time, to the point that he recently started banning ID supporters who happen to disagree about the details.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,12:58   

oh, and John A. Davison.

but that's it..

aside from all that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,13:09   

stevestory wrote:
Quote
I would delete everything you wrote.

Why everything? Or even most of it?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,13:38   

I wouldn't delete a single word of yours Paley but I bet  you wish you could .

Damned out of your own mouth.

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,15:44   

For the best comment in the thread on Pharyngula, follow this link (go to comment 57312 if it doesn't take you there directly).

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/open_thread_10i06/#c57312

  
stevestory



Posts: 11085
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,16:04   

Yeah, i was counting JAD as one of the 5 or so PT already banned.

Why ban everything Paley said? a very weak quality control of banning loquacious creationists. If I ran an astronomy board I'd ban talkative people who argued the sun went around the earth. Pretty low bar, but better than nothing.

Actually, I'd run a /. style system, and leave the comments intact, just give certain commenters -1 status. anybody who wanted to view them could set their settings accordingly, but the rest of us wouldn't be bothered.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,16:23   

hmm. what about setting some rules like:

-posters who frequently attempt to lead threads off topic, and are warned at least once.

-posters who repeat the same exact argument more than 3 times in a thread, and are warned at least once.

just those two things would pretty much cut out a lot of the nonsense.

and of course, these woud only be in-thread moderator enforced bans.

then, if repeatedly in-thread banned for violations, warnings could be issued for a more lasting ban.

etc.

would folks consider that reasonable?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5118
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2006,17:50   

Re "ID supporters who happen to disagree about the details. "

What details? I didn't think they had any of those... ;)

Henry

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,02:49   

Quote
-posters who repeat the same exact argument more than 3 times in a thread, and are warned at least once.

Unless, of course, the moderator *agreed* with the argument, I take it.

I don't have any objection to creationists repeating essentially the same argument, so long as they make some reasonable effort to respond to objections, and add some substance and detail to their position.

What annoys me is that those posters who make the most cogent objections are simply ignored by the creationists, who seem to sift through the objections finding those with boilerplate creationist answers.

So if I were moderator, I'd like to tell some of these folks: OK, respond meaningfully to post #nnn, or you're outta here.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,05:22   

Quote
Why ban everything Paley said? a very weak quality control of banning loquacious creationists.

But what if those "loquacious" rascals present different arguments and back up what they say with links? I try to rebut the best arguments against my position when I have time, and the only points I rehash are those that have been ducked by evos. I don't deny that some creationists are as you describe, but so are a lot of evos. Personally, I think the mods do a good job. (shrug).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2006,05:54   

Quote
I try to rebut the best arguments against my position when I have time, and the only points I rehash are those that have been ducked by evos.

Fine if true, but there seems to be no real agreement here. My experience is that the "best" arguments are those for which creationists have pat (and long refuted) answers; arguments requiring creative thought are apparently too poor to answer.

Nor have I EVER seen any points "ducked" by "evos". At least on PT, every point any creationist has raised since I've been reading the site, has been answered so exhaustively as to represent the essential hijacking of every thread where any creationist point has been raised.

So I'm concerned that to a creationist, a "good" point is one he can dismiss easily, and "ducking" a point means failure to agree with it. I can see how this would get frustrating for both sides, one side because the other won't listen, the other because the first side doesn't Believe.

  
  32 replies since Jan. 10 2006,07:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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