Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::From JAD

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,07:37

Here's JAD's take on what happened in Vermont.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/uvm-antidarwinian.html

sir_toejam

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,07:46

sanctorum:

second warning:

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 19 2006,02:24

[Sir_Toejam, please refresh your recall of the rules: Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 20 2006,15:14

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,08:43

Quote

First you thought I was JAD and now I'm Davescot?
Sadly I am neither - no soup for you.

Well, you're hardly likely to admit it it if you are DaveScot. It is odd that Springer is about the only person who gives credence to JAD's ideas, and now we have you apparently promoting them. The no soup remark is lost on me, I would welcome an explanation.

Quote

How's rehab?

I was doing fine until someone decided to start relaying again!

PS well done Tacitus' parents.

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:15

Hi Alan,
No I wouldn't would I?

The "no soup for you" reference may be lost on Europeans over 40.
It's from Seinfeld. It really wasn't particular to our exchange, I just like the sound of it.

Sorry to keep your fingers twitching but if sirtoejam has any say, and his stern warnings have any impact, then I may not be here long anyway.

How many times did you quote JAD before you became annoying and were warned, by the way?

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:43

Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 19 2006,01:34)

I have brought something here "From JAD"

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

This is a little bit confusing.

Does it apply to pasting and criticising the banned persons points as well?

The reason I am asking is that it is impossible to refute an IDiots point at UD. Specifically Dave Scot (he is also banned), Should we now desist in posting his (DS's) IDiocy here to argue/point out the stupididty of ID claims?

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,09:52

Don't worry, Stephen.
One would have to weigh your motives for commenting as well as the content.
Rules only work if they are sufficiently flexible.

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:12

Twice.

I used to watch Seinfeld, which was shown on UK TV. Must have missed the soup episode.

It is quite hard to get banned here. Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.

JAD has a perfectly respectable platform at ISCID, where he maintains a saner persona, (do you not think it odd he is banned at UD and ARN, if his work is so relevant to ID, and as ID is so short of appropriately academically qualified proponents) so I don't really understand why you or he think he needs to post here.

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:15

Posting a part of some statement made elsewhere and actually discussing it is unlikely to be troublesome. But this thread started with a complete screed from a banned user, and later had another one entered, for no real reason other than that the banned user had asked others to pimp his stuff. That's out of bounds.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:15

Quote

It is quite hard to get banned here. Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.

Wesley needs to grow a pair. Wesley is Gone. -ds

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:32

Quote

Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.

No, someone who is "excessively annoying" will be banned. The phrase dates back to FidoNet bulletin board systems (I ran an RBBS-Net node from 1989 to 1991, and then was in FidoNet from 1991 to 1996), where doing bad things made one "annoying", and doing such bad things that one's access needed to be immediately removed made one "excessively annoying".

While it is possible to get to "excessively annoying" in a single incident (posting spam, for example), most users get the benefit of doubt over posting infractions and will have the opportunity to "straighten up and fly right". That said, I will note that I take usurpation of moderation events as particularly annoying.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:39

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2006,16:15)

Posting a part of some statement made elsewhere and actually discussing it is unlikely to be troublesome. But this thread started with a complete screed from a banned user, and later had another one entered, for no real reason other than that the banned user had asked others to pimp his stuff. That's out of bounds.

Oki Doki,

That is what I expected. Just thought I would make certain.

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:42

Hi Alan,
Not everything is about ID.
Had the quote I provided earlier not been edited you would find that you are, in fact, discussing the topic of it.
JAD says that he is not an IDist, and that they want nothing to do with him because he doesn't agree with them or their methods.

Hopefully your recovery will include the purging of your ID bogeymen.

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,10:49

Alan didn't claim that Davison was an ID advocate.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

tacitus

Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,17:29

Wow - this thread has degenerated into something as confusing as if JAD was allow to participate!

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 20 2006,20:06

If we're going to be like that, I didn't claim Alan did.
But perhaps I did shed light on why I don't think it's so odd that JAD is banned at UD and ARN.

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,01:19

"Does he take sugar?"

If I were inclined to search through JAD's various web postings, I think I could find John generally claiming that ID should not even be debated, as it was so obvious that life has been created. His beef with Dembski et al. was that he (John) is proposing a method whereby the creating was done by front loading, and IDers were not taking up his idea.

I'm sure John will put you right on his blog, if I am in error. I bet he follows the threads, still. BTW, Sanctum, you wouldn't be Avocationist playing games, would you? I realise now you're not Davbe2lot as he couldn't have stayed civil through so many postings.

Jay Ray

Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,03:17

I'll bet you my appendix that's not Avo.

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:14

Well it's someone we are already familiar with, I'm convinced. Couldn't we bet something simpler, or is yours already in a bottle?

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:17

I'm starting to think I might be Alan Fox's sock puppet.

Yes, JAD did, and does, say that the design is obvious and that the greatest mistake the IDists made was in presenting it for debate.
Maybe you are claiming that he is an ID advocate.

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:35

Renard, so far you are not very good at this "guess the IDiot cretinist" game.

JAD had a comment on the evils of this anonymous commenting somewhere but I can't seem to find it here. Oh yes, that's right, like JAD, it no longer exists.
And yet here we are discussing the content just as though its inclusion had had some purpose.

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,04:57

I'm sure John is the best source of what he professes to believe, and so long as he doesn't want to force those beliefs on me or anyone else, he is entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wishes.

I also think there is zero mileage in his pseudo-scientific ideas, but he still interests me from a sociological point of view.

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,05:47

The only problem with anonymous commenting is sociopaths who abuse the system, a "tragedy of the commons" sort of thing.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,06:29

Golly, Wesley, you are psychic. I had to curtail my post as I had an appointment, or I would have added something about that. A pseudonym is fine if people stick to it, as the overwhelming majority do.

Interesting you mention Renard, Sanctum. It took Dave2lot many weeks and several hints to pick up on that. He certainly isn't as bright as he thinks he is. But content gets you booted at UD, no matter what name one uses. I must have gone through around six.

Anyway, give me some more to work with and let's see what we can come up with.

avocationist

Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,06:59

Davison says it was a mistake for ID to ever concede that design was a point of argument, but I can't see how that was to be avoided.

I suspect the real reason he gets banned is he doesn't watch his tongue.

It is possible that I am Sanctum. I also have two older brothers.

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,07:10

Jay Ray?

I'll settle for a photo of your appendix.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,07:14

Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 21 2006,12:59)

Davison says it was a mistake for ID to ever concede that design was a point of argument, but I can't see how that was to be avoided.

I suspect the real reason he gets banned is he doesn't watch his tongue.

You mean banned at PT? Well, yeah, that's why he was banned at PT, basically for repeat-offender assholery. He wasn't banned for having stupid ideas. Oodles of people with stupid ideas pop up at PT semi-regularly, and have for months and months. That may get them ridiculed and heckled, but it won't get them banned. Davison's problem was that he chose not to suppress his instinct to act like a sociopath.

If you're talking about JD's banning at UD, that was presumably more complicated.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:15

Alan,
As for my friend Avocationist (aren't I the presumptuous one?), although we have both recently outed ourselves as gay men (somewhat more difficult for a married woman to do, I'll admit) we are clearly not one and the same.

As we both seem to lack Wesley's clairvoyance we did have a difference of opinion on a topic where his skills would have come in handy.

No appendectomy for Jay Ray required.

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:33

What, you've got a dolphin you need broadband acoustic recordings taken on?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 21 2006,08:36

Curses... foiled again.

Drew Headley

Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006