Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Civility

Pages: (7) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] >

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:05    Quote You would do well to note that the very first time that I posted about civility on this forum was to defend another, not myself actually, that could easily be taken as a bit of concern trolling. do you know what that is? frankly, you've spent SO much energy and time on this issue, I find myself completely bored of your presence on this board, and have no expectations you will have anything of interest to contribute in the near future. sorry, gotta call em as i see em. you've been given outs to move on to something more productive any number of times, so my advice, for what it's worth, is that you do so if you actually wish to be a productive member of this little forum. barring that, you should stick yourself like glue to this thread and shake your fist harder. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:12    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,05:50) Quote Avocationist was undoubtably stressed by just that. I'm curious but at what stage do people take responsibility and accountability for themselves on these boards? Having said that, it is what I stress to people on the groups I moderate. Quote If someone comes to debate here, they are going to have to deal with that level of heat. And, if they can't deal with it, does everyone go running to Steve?? Quote But on top of that there where the snide remarks attacking her intelligence Yes, much how when deadman was called "deadbeat" and an idiot on this thread? C'mon! Quote The pack then turned it's attention to me, and we then got to see that abuse has just about become ritualised on this board.  First come the snide remarks on my reading comprehension. Victimisation works, if you are not a perpetrator. Quote I was accused by 3 people at once, repeatedly, of being a hypocrite. Actually if I remember correctly, Louis was stating how he responds TO hypocrisy. I responded to that. Then you called deadman an "idiot" - he called you a "hypocrite". *sighs* this is totally juvenile. This is NOT a controlled debate forum. It's unfair to expect Steve (who you are appealing to) to monitor everything on this board because an individual and/or individuals do not know how to filter out what they will and will not respond to.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:20    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,23:52) Give it a rest, demallien. I didn't respond to your previous post for a reason. The facts speak for themselves and are included in my reviewing post above. I realize you want to pose as a victim and to have the last word, but I will note now that once again, you never responded to my final post to you regarding the matter. You did do a fine job of managing to change my screenname to "deadbeat," though -- much like Jerry Falwell calling Ellen DeGeneris " Ellen Degenerate" and about as effective. I'm sure you will now want "the final word'" so feel free to whine away again. I won't respond to your inevitable next post. Well, it's nice to know that I'll have the last word :-) Deadman, since Steve stepped in, I have tried to keep this discussion civil.  You apparently are incapable of doing so, sliding back into sneering through the use of words such as "whine" and "pose as the victim'.  But hey, that's ok, one can't expect you to grow up overnight... You still haven't come up with the pair of quotes needed to show that I'm a hypocrite.  You know, the quote where I say "Everyone should do xxx", followed up with the quote showing that I do yyy instead.  That wouldn't be because a pair of such quotes doesn't exist now would it?  I don't suppose I could ask you for an apology perhaps? You also might note that I got what I wanted out of the discussion deadman, which is to say better moderation on this forum.  You didn't get what you apparently want, which is the right to unbridled abuse as you see fit.  You might want to think about that before dismissing my position as 'whining'.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:36    Quote You also might note that I got what I wanted out of the discussion deadman, which is to say better moderation on this forum. Yes, control.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:41    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,00:12) It's unfair to expect Steve (who you are appealing to) to monitor everything on this board because an individual and/or individuals do not know how to filter out what they will and will not respond to. Jo, Point 1.  You, as with others, seem to be under the impression that I think that no insults should ever be uttered on this board, and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman.  You wouldn't happen to have handy a quote saying that I feel that no insults are acceptable on this board would you?  Nah, didn't think so.  Anyway, all that's in the past.  We aren't here to rehash all those arguments, but rather to try and find a way of preventing such situations in the future. Point 2. I'm appealling to Steve???  Again, in the heat of the discussion, I explicitly stated that I don't think running to the moderator every time there is a problem was a solution.  The only time I addressed a comment to Steve was when everyone was accusing me of being a sock puppet, and I wanted him to clarify that the IP addresses in question were in fact different.  In the post-discussion, I have tried to explain, both as an observer, and as the person under attack, what I saw as a pattern of behaviour, with the goal of finding exactly what is the unacceptable behaviour, so that reasonable behaviour, including robust debate can continue unhindered.  Note that I have even suggested that censoring by sending posts to the Bathroom Wall probably isn't the best solution. Point 3.  Check out the phrase in italics.  I've never claimed to be the victim Jo.  I'm not stupid enough to let myself become a victim of bullies.  But that I was the person under attack froma group is un undeniable fact.  You may choose to suggest that the attack was reasonable - I disagree, and that is a debate for elsewhere.  But that I was an individual under attack froma group is a simple statement of fact. Point 4.  You suggest that if a person doesn't like un insult, they can simply choose not to answer.  Unfortunately you have to read the insult before knowing it's there, so the poor insultee is still going to feel the sting.  And well, sure, that's pretty much what Avocationist did.  She chose not to answer by leaving.  Is that what you want Jo?  To finish every debate with the person holding the minority position  to pack up and leave?  Groupthink much?!?!

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:45    must - shake - fist - harder. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,02:29    It seems to me that if posters are off-topic, spamming, using bad language, then the mods should be alerted. A response in kind leads to escalation of the sort recently witnessed. Children behave best in an environment where the ground rules are clear, fair and enforced. I too think it was a shame Avocationist was given a rough ride without having much of an opportunity to show whether her world view was capable of changing. Giving people enough rope... works well. But what makes my opinions any more  authoritative than anyone else's?

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,03:25    Quote You, as with others, seem to be under the impression that I think that no insults should ever be uttered on this board No I don't. Nor have I ever said that. This is NOT a formal debate. Therefore THIS does NOT afford constant monitoring. Quote and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman If you are going to stress a point about behaviour, then keep within the boundaries of that behaviour. Simple. Otherwise it will rear up and bite you in the ass. "Do as I say, not as I do" Quote We aren't here to rehash all those arguments, but rather to try and find a way of preventing such situations in the future. I was asking for solutions a ways back.. Quote I'm appealling to Steve??? Well, you said: Steve,  I'm not sure that people have really grasped where the incivility was in the last couple of discussions.  Let me explain from my point of view, at first as a bystander, and then secondly as the target. Found here: Link Quote You may choose to suggest that the attack was reasonable - I disagree, and that is a debate for elsewhere. Ok, there is a  lot presupposition as to what I supposed am doing, posting, claiming AND thinking. So I will lay this out to save further confusion. On these message boards as with any message boards and/or chat group and/or email group, people who decide to engage in discussions need to take responsbility and accountability for themselves. Avocationist is more than articulate enough to speak for herself. Avocationist is more than proficient enough to debate this subject for herself. The mere fact that Avocationist is debating on the other thread, is adequate grounds to say that Avocationist knows what she is doing. Also, that Avocationist chose not to speak to those insulting her, shows that Avocationist actually has taken responsibility into her hands to decide what she will and will not do - and much credit to Avocationist on that score. Avocationist is also back debating again. Probably with no long term psychological effects. Deadman is my partner (or SO as Ichyt calls him) and the only time I intervened on his dialogue was when he was called "Deadbeat" however, I credit him with his own personal accountability and responsibility not to cock-block his discussions with anyone on any board. Nor do I defend him - he's more than capable of doing that himself - however I will pick out certain things said - that don't synchronise - one of those being "deadbeat". The sheer fact that this has escalated to the realms it has, is a controlling factor. Who can do what, when, where, to whom, and why, and who should sort it out. It should never have escalated this far. So let me reiterate this: 1. Personal responsibility and accountability is needed by individuals who enter onto boards where debate is present - there are opposing sides, and where it is not a FORMAL debate. 2. Avocationist is a big girl, highly articulate, eloquent and possessing skills to debate. Not to diminish anything she has done - her break away has infused her to continue debating - making this discussion MOOT. 3. Louis has conducted himself in a manner which I find to be amicable, stressing what he will and will not tolerate. In doing so he has set down his boundaries. It is up to others to accept those boundaries or not. If they accept them, then obviously it will be on the understanding of those boundaries. The same applies to Dr. Lenny, Deadman and anyone else here. Yourself included. 4. I have read many things, and I noticed that Avocationist has done the same - has she replied to everything that has been insulting? No. Why? Because she has started to self-filter. Which she is doing again on the thread named after her. Conclusion: The original topic is back in full swing, after Avocationists short vacation - she did mention she would be away for awhile. Obviously not long lasting and with no long term negative effects. Positions have been stated, made clear and thats more than anyone could ask for - boundaries were laid down by specific people. Also, people are NOT forced to log in. They are not FORCED to answer. Why they chose to, is solely their responsibility. I hope that's made it more clearer. If not, ask, and I'll restate it again.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,04:23    Quote The sheer fact that this has escalated to the realms it has, is a controlling factor. Who can do what, when, where, to whom, and why, and who should sort it out. It should never have escalated this far. So let me reiterate this: 1. Personal responsibility and accountability is needed by individuals who enter onto boards where debate is present - there are opposing sides, and where it is not a FORMAL debate. 2. Avocationist is a big girl, highly articulate, eloquent and possessing skills to debate. Not to diminish anything she has done - her break away has infused her to continue debating - making this discussion MOOT. 3. Louis has conducted himself in a manner which I find to be amicable, stressing what he will and will not tolerate. In doing so he has set down his boundaries. It is up to others to accept those boundaries or not. If they accept them, then obviously it will be on the understanding of those boundaries. The same applies to Dr. Lenny, Deadman and anyone else here. Yourself included. 4. I have read many things, and I noticed that Avocationist has done the same - has she replied to everything that has been insulting? No. Why? Because she has started to self-filter. Which she is doing again on the thread named after her. Conclusion: The original topic is back in full swing, after Avocationists short vacation - she did mention she would be away for awhile. Obviously not long lasting and with no long term negative effects. Positions have been stated, made clear and thats more than anyone could ask for - boundaries were laid down by specific people. Also, people are NOT forced to log in. They are not FORCED to answer. Why they chose to, is solely their responsibility. I hope that's made it more clearer. If not, ask, and I'll restate it again. Which is all well and good.  I even agree with most of it.  But have a think about this Jo.  I insulted deadman only after my blood had started to boil after repeated snide comments about my identity, my integrity, and my intelligence. It should not be necessary that people's blood is set to boiling.  At any rate, as we all managed to amply demonstrate, once the blood is boiling, good debate goes out the window.  In the interest of quality debate, if nothing else, people need to ease back on the snarking. You claim that Avocationist has started self-filtering.  Go and read her latest posts again.  She express, repeatedly, and in strong terms her disgust at the level of vitriol that is being directed at her.  She expresses frustration that people accuse her of being dishonest simply because she disagrees with them.  I confirm that this is what people have been doing to her. Anyway, as I've pointed out previously, you can't filter out all of the nastiness.  Some of it is intimately mixed in with the arguments people are making.  To avoid debates degenerating, it would seem evident that the insults need to be toned down considerably.  Once they start flowing, they won't stop, because people get all excited.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,04:35    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,03:25) Quote and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman If you are going to stress a point about behaviour, then keep within the boundaries of that behaviour. Simple. Otherwise it will rear up and bite you in the ass. "Do as I say, not as I do" Sure, I agree with you.  But if I haven't said that nobody should ever insult each other on the board, then it's not hypocrisy for me to insult someone "Do as I say, not do as I do" .   This is really not very difficult to understand Jo. To help you get a handle on what I do in fact consider to be inacceptable, it's when the level of insults get very nasty (I've never really seen this on this forum happily enough), or when the number of insults starts to go passed the number of points raised (ie it becomes gratuitous), or (and I admit, I have only added this one in after reflecting over discussions of the past week), when a group of people start throwing around insults at one person, as a type of group attack.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,04:44    Quote But if I haven't said that nobody should ever insult each other on the board, then it's not hypocrisy for me to insult someone "Do as I say, not do as I do" .   This is really not very difficult to understand Jo. Good because that is why I brought the focus back on Avocationist - this should never have been personalised. It's not about YOU, its not about ME, its not about DEADMAN, or LOUIS. If in fact its about anyone, its about STEVE. I made sure I never personalised it and dealt with the context of this. That should not be difficult to understand. What should be understood is that this was raised - the only person with a major issue was you. It was evidently Steve's job to fix it - he has done his best considering. This continued topic all goes back to Steve - as the moderator. As a moderator myself, the best one could hope for to ensure Steve's job is made easier is to help him find a solution - are you DOING THAT? The rest of what you are saying to me in your posts now are POINTLESS - sorry but thats true. It's absolutely POINTLESS. So stop being a cause and find a solution. I have offered solutions - I will again. Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,05:37    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:44) I have offered solutions - I will again. Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple. Sure, you've offered a solution. But it's not very practical is it.  I mean let's work through it.  Person A insults Person B.  Now if I've understood you correctly, you're fine with that.  If Person B can't handle the insult, they should just screen it.  OK. The problem is, what if Person B does handle it, but decides that the best response is an insult in return?  Presumably you're also ok with this, because hey, it's only an insult, and Person A should just filter if he can't deal, right? And so on, until we finish up with the thread that we just had, which everyone agrees was a Bad Thing.  In other words, your "solution" is in fact what we had already. UNLESS of course you propose that the chain should be broken somewhere.  Perhaps Person B doesn't have the right to insult Person A?  So whoever is quicker on the insult can continue insulting?  I can imagine that one: Every thread would start of with variations on "You're all fucking deranged, and nyah nyah nyah, you can't insult me back any more, because I was first!" If Person A did get in first, and you're suggesting that Person B shouldn't respond, does this mean that person A can continue insulting Person B as much as he likes? You see, it's just plain ridiculous! It would never work! Or at least, it would never avoid the situations that we've had recently. I agree though that personal responsibility is the key.  But it has to come from the side of the insulter - Person A in our example above. If person A never starts throwing around insults, the cycle never starts. Which is where my proposed solution (a few posts back)comes in.  Firstly, that everyone tries to stay civil (my position right from word go), and when they slip, the moderator gives a simple warning in-thread.  This seems to be what Steve is now doing (he almost certainly came up with this independently though - wouldn't want to be accused of trying to claim credit by an uncharitable reader)- we'll see how it turns out.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,05:58    Quote Which is where my proposed solution (a few posts back)comes in.  Firstly, that everyone tries to stay civil (my position right from word go), and when they slip, the moderator gives a simple warning in-thread.  This seems to be what Steve is now doing (he almost certainly came up with this independently though - wouldn't want to be accused of trying to claim credit by an uncharitable reader)- we'll see how it turns out. So where exactly does this exclude personal responsibility (being civil) and personal accountability (moderation)? Let me map this out where you will understand: Personal responsibility: Being responsible for ones conduct on the board. Being responsible for what one responds to, and how. Being responsible as a whole in communication - in particular ones own communication because you very well can't adequately predict and control another person's communication - therefore start with and focus on, ones personal self. Personal accountability: If one does not conduct themselves in a manner befitting the usual discourse, then one must face the consequences. Usually having a moderator intervene. So nothing you have said excludes what I have structured out, in fact, it's fully covered by what I have said.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,09:30    Can someone let me know when the Politeness Policeman is finished . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,10:06    The requirement that posters act respectful towards each other is here to stay.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,12:37    Not you.  I meant the **self-annointed** Politeness Policeman. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,12:43    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,00:36) I think everyone probably agrees with that Mike.  But then, the problem isn't really with those types of post.  When it's clear that a post is 100% generic insult, the reader probably does just skip over it. But the problem is that you can't just skip over all of the insults.  Take for example earlier in this thread when deadman indicated that he thought I was Avocationist posting under a second identity. I calmly took this as just a ridiculous insult that belittled deadman far more than me, so I let it ride.  But then the guy repeats it, highlighting that I haven't answered his ridiculous question.  Worse than that, the rest of the pack had alreay picked up the dumb meme that I was a sockpuppet, so I had it coming from all directions.  So you see, you can't just scrub out the gratuitous insults - you're expected to answer the dumb things. But who are you engaging on the thread?  Up until the point you came in and told Lenny to tone it down there wasn't any engagement between you and deadman (or the others).   So what changed?  The fact that the other debaters engaged your comment (and thus you) and you responded with reasoning.  At THIS point, in my mind, I would have ceased the back-and-forth and started a new thread on my own.  The subject drifted from the thread.  Therefore you could choose to engage (or disengage) at your hearts content on a thread specific to the point.  That is why many commented to bring the discussion over here. As far as the specific "angry mob" attack I can see some of the reasoning behind the responses to your explanations.  It was fine for the first couple posts then the next few comments it resembled a Monty Python sketch (bless their creative minds) where you are the Officer (Graham Chapman) walking into a room of chaotic discussion and yelling "WHAT'S ALL THIS THEN!!!" and pontificating on your point while the others, distracted, hold their nose and pooh-pooh the messenger because of the interruption. Quote Also, there are insults that will push people's buttons.  Personally, I don't appreciate people attacking my integrity.  Calling me a liar, accusing me of misleading or deceiving, these things I am unwilling to let them stand in a public forum.  Other people can't stand being called dumb - note deadman's response to being labelled a blithering idiot.  So that's a second class of insult that people simply need to answered.  I'm willing to bet that you too have certain insults, which you would need to answer.  If, because of a funny turn of phrase somewhere, someone could accuse you of being a child molestor for example, with enough justifications given so that a reader not paying attention might be sucked in.  You'd probably feel a need to respond to that. Ahhh....  So you noticed deadman and others use of the "button" tactic.  A well defined and honorable debate method that requires practice and guile.  If done poorly the "button pusher" looks the fool (take DaveScot for example), BUT if done successfully then no one else, even the "button pushee", quite sees the button being pushed until well after responses and comments have revealed or committed someone off track into (usually) purely emotional responses.  Now, with skill, the "button pushee" can recover and get the discussion back on track.  I think Icthyic said it best... "...the most productive response, based on the history here, appears to be a witty retort followed by moving on to the next arena." If someone can't control their own responses while at the same time defusing or derailing other attacks then I see issues in their life in the future. Quote Anyhow, as you note, one or two insults, people can probably let slide.  But unleash a torrent of insults from multiple sources, and the person is probably going to feel the need to respond.  We'll just have to wait until the mob turns it's attention on you to see if you remain graceful under fire... Personnally I would look forward to the situation.  I consider myself practiced in inuendo and sarcasm enough that I would turn the insults back on the slinger.  It's not that I have a thick skin (I do), but that the attacks directed at me must either be based on something I wrote in the past or the personal feelings of the poster.  If it's factual then we can examine it openly.  If it's personal then we can enter the verbal arena (if we so choose) and see who the victor becomes.  I don't attach much value in the personal attacks of the other board members. Mike PSS

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,13:58    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,05:37) Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:44) I have offered solutions - I will again. Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple. Sure, you've offered a solution. But it's not very practical is it.  I mean let's work through it.  Person A insults Person B.  Now if I've understood you correctly, you're fine with that.  If Person B can't handle the insult, they should just screen it.  OK. The problem is, what if Person B does handle it, but decides that the best response is an insult in return?  Presumably you're also ok with this, because hey, it's only an insult, and Person A should just filter if he can't deal, right? And so on, until we finish up with the thread that we just had, which everyone agrees was a Bad Thing.  In other words, your "solution" is in fact what we had already... I quite like most of the insults on this board. I have had a couple aimed at me and they just made me think. "Did I communicate well" "Was my post easilly missunderstood"? etc. Most people who post regularly here are quite intelligent, interesting to "talk" with and have fascinating stories. Much better than any creationist/ID board. The two most insulting people here are probably Lenny and Louis. I have met Louis and like him, I could not care less if we have different world views. The guy is interesting and fun to be around. Never met Lenny, but I would probably enjoy his company if I did ( and if he had his daneaxe with him, I would at least pretend to like hin)*. *That bit was suposed to be joke. If you are easilly offended then please don't post here. I would rather see you gone than a change in moderation policy here.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,17:25    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 03 2007,13:58) Never met Lenny, but I would probably enjoy his company if I did You'd enjoy it more if you were a 20 year old attractive brunette. Or at least *I* would enjoy it more.   NOTE to the Politeness Policeman, this is a joke.  Humor.  Funny.  Ar ar ar.  Good-natured friendly ribbing. Sorry if it offends you. No, actually I'm lying -- I'm not sorry at all. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,10:02    Bill is correct. I've taken to just that practice, daily. Keeps me on my toes. Just for fun, I picked on myself this morning over my slovenly "bed-head" appearance. I'm thinking about punching myself out later for that. God, I'm a prick sometimes. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,12:15    Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D *cries*

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,12:49    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,12:15) Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D *cries* Javelin catching? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,13:25    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,00:20) Well, it's nice to know that I'll have the last word :-) Deadman, since Steve stepped in, I have tried to keep this discussion civil.  You apparently are incapable of doing so, sliding back into sneering through the use of words such as "whine" and "pose as the victim'.  But hey, that's ok, one can't expect you to grow up overnight... Sometimes, Growing up is a tad over-rated. In a supermarket, you can buy all kinds of fish. Today only, big special. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,14:04    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,12:15) Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D *cries* Well my javelin is bigger than theirs. So there. ;) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,18:29    Quote I'm through wasting my time. Oh no you're not! come back here! *sounds of gnashing teeth* -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,20:15    umm....where's my insult? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,20:40    *sound of hair blowing in the breeze* uh, what's a golf clap? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,15:46    Oops—posted to the wrong thread. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,15:52    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,17:54) Mike PSS: Basically Dave is stuck in a rut and spinning his wheels wildly trying to equate evolution and creationism. He's tried lots of different approaches and ploys to say that evolution can't be falsified because it's macro-evo, not science, not empirical repeatable science, not nomothetic science, not granola Keebler Elf Kookie science (okay, the last might be mine). At present, Dave is demanding evidence that evolution made "risky" predictions from Darwin to the elucidation of the genetic code  and Dave searching hard for any statements that might show --however tenously-- that creationism made similar "predictions." Dave is also busily claiming that the creationist paradigm was "science" that Darwinian evolution supplanted. And, I'm pretty sure that after 80-odd pages of trying to show that macroevolution is "unfalsifiable," Dave has been confusing "falsifiable" with "provable" all along. I realized that if I replace the word "falsifiable" with "provable" in his posts, they actually make sense. For example, he claims that the principle of common descent with modifcation is not "falsifiable." He continues to maintain this after we've given him at least three dozen different methods of falsifying it. But if you replace "falsifiable" with "provable," then his claim becomes "common descent is not provable." Which, of course, is pretty reasonable. He says the same thing about the common descent of humans and chimps. He says, "The statement that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is not falsifiable," which is of course preposterous on its face. But if you change his wording to "The statement that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is not provable," then most anthropologists and paleontologists would probably agree. They'd think he was hair-splitting, and wonder why cares whether any scientific claim is "provable" or not, but they probably wouldn't disagree. So I asked him if he could explain to me the distinction between "falsifiable" and "provable." So far he's been silent on the issue. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Pages: (7) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard