Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,18:44    Dear All, Since this issue comes up again and again perhaps a thread to discuss it might amuse. We have two current playmates, AFDave and Ghost of Paley who often claim that some of the anticreationist members of this make the anticreationism look bad because we can be so rude. I'll right away hold my hands up very high on the charge of being abusive. I won't at all hold my hands up to being abusive to people without any just cause. Here's an example of the sort of dissonance and dishonesty we are dealing with: Stevestory's announcement that the AFDave experience was going to die: Quote And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine. For several thousand posts, AFDave threw out crazy claims and scientifically-literate people disposed of them in a mostly respectable way. For thousands of posts, AFDave cut and pasted arguments, or just made up his own impossible ones. The AFDave modus operandi never changed. Just imagine whatever he wants, believe his daydreams to be powerful science, don't bother to support it, misunderstand everything he cut and pastes and everything people tell him in response, and don't bother to stop and learn even the basics. There's only so long reasonable people can be respectful towards that kind of behavior. Before I moved to Chapel Hill and added a new job and several extracurricular activities, I had lots of time to police the insults and interfere with people describing the situation in accurate but rude ways. People here know what they're doing, they know that AFDave refuses to learn, they are just arguing with him for the benefit of the lurkers. Well, I submit the lurkers can extract all they need to know from the existing corpus of the thread. It's no longer about them, and the thread is pointless. It's now just AFDave continuing his clueless behavior, and people calling him clueless in response. So my only decision, it being pointless to continue policing the thread, is do I let it continue or call it a day? Well, AFDave still wants to blabber, and several people want to insult him for it, so why should I get in the way? I spend my time checking out the other threads, ones which have some value, and mostly ignore this one. It'll go on til people get tired of it. That doesn't mean I'm totally hands off, it means that I'm mostly ignoring it excepting the occasions when people email me and say, "somebody's committing libel on the AFDave thread, and you might want to put a stop to it" and similar things. If, 10,000 posts along in the thread, it's nothing more than Dave saying stupid things and people commenting on how stupid those things are, so be it. It's really not contributing anything to the board, however, so it would be nice if AFDave would shift this mess to his own blog. And the GoP version of events: Quote If that weren't enough (and of course it is), there's also the fact that Stevestory rewards your (and other people's) behaviour by banning/restricting the objects of your abuse. Don't want Dave around? No problem! Just hurl brickbats and rotten tomatoes and then whine about the level of incivility, and presto! Dave's World is closed. And: Quote It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an opportunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE. Now what kind of message does that send to the jackals? Sorry but I just don't see the same emphasis there at all. In fact I can barely see that GoP's comments even apply to the same situation being outlined by Steve. So are we dealing with the standard differences of opinion and anger that rises from time to time? Or are we dealing with genuine imbalance, one side good, other side bad? I'm happy to be wrong, but I'm going to state my case right out front: I think that it IS possible to have a polite honest conversation (on or offline) about sensitive topics like religion or politics with someone who you profoundly disagree with. It's something I've done a million times (no exaggeration, I like a chat! ) and do very regularly. What I CANNOT and WILL NOT tolerate is dishonesty and silly oneupmanship. I have to be honest this is what really annoys me about GoP and AFDave. They seem to think they can act as dishonestly as they like and cry "foul" when called on it, even politely. Declarations of "victory" when the evidence is against them, like a debate or discussion is some playground game. Quote mines, misrepresenting people's arguments, outright lies, deliberately trolling, etc etc etc. The list is endless. What is it about this sort of conduct that they think is acceptable? We are on a limited forum, a type and image only internet message board. Most people here work very hard, and those that don't undoubtedly have other interests and activities they could better be spending their time on.  My point is that we all come here for discussion, debate, a little camaraderie perhaps, whatever. Hey perhaps we just come to laugh at the tards at UD. My point is this, in the format limited and time limited arena we have for our discussions a degree of honesty is essential for any discussion to be productive. If we can't rely that our words won't be twisted dishonestly, if we are going to have to repetitively deal with the SAME demonstrably false claims rom the same people, and so on, then any discussion is rendered useless. The entire purpose of these fora is rendered useless. In the olden days, in the before time, Talk.Origins was created to take the kooks and creationists (such redundancy! )  away from the science discussion boards because the REAL scientists trying to have REAL discussions were being distracted by demonstrably erroneous and demonstrably dishonest bullshit from a wide variety of trolls, kooks, concern trolls etc. Basically people pissing in the water. In my opinion AFDave and GoP and others have been treated immesely leniently considering their demonstrable conduct. I openly state that were I in charge I wouldn't have been so tolerant. At the first (ok maybe third) sign of intractable dishonesty I'd have removed them. Not out of some UDlike desire for censorship but out of a simple desire to have a productive conversation with someone. Go to T.O. or Alt.Atheism nowadays and you can rarely have a conversation with an neophyte creationist or anti-atheist without having a hoard of disenchanted regulars immediately leaping down their throats. I'm overjoyed to note that this isn't the case at ATBC. I'm also honest enough to point out that I am at least as disenchanted as those regulars, I used to be one. There is a happy medium here, one I am not wise enough to fully delineate myself. Surely it's possible to have the "lurker useful" chat with the AFDaves of this world and still be able to draw things to an adequate close when it becomes obvious that the AFDave-esque individual is incapable of learning anything. Again I'll be blunt. I consider dishonesty infinitely more rude, more counter productive to discussion than calling someone eleven types of cunt for being dishonest. I consider the abuse heaped on Dave and GoP totally and 100% earnt by those individuals. Lest anyone forget, GoP has ADMITTED to deliberately trolling this board for a year. Let that sink in if it hasn't. He is STILL here, he is STILL posting, and he is STILL doing the same things he has always done. Dave has driven round and around in the same circles spouting the same well refuted lies. That's not tolerance, that's weakness. A weakness to stand up for decent honest people and decent honest conversation. A weakness we liberals are so often accused of, and dammit rightly on some occasions. We want to let everyone have their go, and so we should. We truly want to believe that all people are equally wonderful and equally truthful and that if they were shown the evidence they'd slap their foreheads and say "oops", and so we should. But i we continue to do this without end, we are wrong. I think we need to continue to treat people openly and with some degree of hope, but that we also need to remove those individuals who demonstrate that they cannot play nicely at all. If we were all women and we all had a massive argument with our partners, and our partners slapped us, not really hard, but nasty enough, we might think "Hey, heat of the moment, give the guy another chance, we've got a lot invested in the relationship". That would be tolerance. Perhaps foolish, perhaps not. How many times do we have to be slapped across the face before we realise that some guys aren't going to change. Perhaps an awful analogy, give me a better one. My point is how many times do we have to let Dave make the same well refuted claim? How many times do we have to let GoP try his revisionist history shit? I think it's a small number, a much smaller number than has been allowed. But hey, it's not my river, I'm just pissing here. Can we really justify letting these things continue ad nauseum simply for the sake of the lurkers? Lurkers dumb enough not to learn from one or two iterations of the same old game are not going to learn from three, as Steve implies. Discuss. Louis -------------- Bye.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,20:44    Well, can someone remind me why GoP wasn't banned for trolling this board (actually him and a second person) for over a year? I don't recall any mitigating circumstances being mentioned at the time. It certainly can't be his sparkling personality. -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,22:22    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 13 2007,20:44) Well, can someone remind me why GoP wasn't banned for trolling this board (actually him and a second person) for over a year? I don't recall any mitigating circumstances being mentioned at the time. It certainly can't be his sparkling personality. Martyr Syndrome. He'll be after his crown of thorns next. -------------- "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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,22:43    Screw 'em.  (shrug)   ID/creationism is a political fight.  Politics is a business full of knives.  This isn't a badminton match -- it's a boxing match.  Punches will be thrown, teeth will be knocked out, and blood will spatter the walls.  One side will win and walk away, one side won't. If the nutters can't take it, they should go cloister themselves somewhere safe and never venture out into the real world.  Heat, kitchen, and all that. I see no need whatever to make nice-nice with them.  My aim, frankly and openly, is to destroy them as an effective political movement.  Completely, totally, and irreversibly.  And I make no promise whatsoever to be "polite" about it. I treat fundies the same way I treat Nazis, Leninists and Klansmen.  And for much the same reasons. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,23:05    Hey Louis, I'd like to echo your sentiments 100% - in fact, it's eerie how close your views mirror my own.  I too love stimulating conversation from someone with a different view than I have.  In my mind, hearing about two sides of an issue is the intellectual equivalent of having binocular vision - much more depth than a flat one-D look.  But the one thing that I absolutely, positively, cannot stand is dishonesty.  Maybe I'm old school, but my folks raised me to believe honesty and integrity meant everything to a man.   When AFDave started posting, I thought he and I could have some interesting talks, especially since we had a common EE background and aerospace experience.  However, it soon became apparent that lying and dishonesty came as easy as breathing to Dave.  The more I tried to engage him, the more dishonest and evasive he became.  That, coupled with his titanic ego, pushed me over the edge.  I admit I was quite verbally abusive, but it came from pure frustration in dealing with such a dishonest sh*t.  If ever the phrase 'Liar for Jesus' applies, it's to Dave Hawkins. I'm not very religious, but I've always lived my life by the golden rule.  If someone is honest and fair with me, they get my respect and attention even if our views differ.  But lie to me, act like a cowardly blowhard, and the gloves come off.  I have no problems with banning someone like Dave, not for their views but after they've shown no capacity for honest discussion. I haven't had any dealings with GOP, although I believe he admitted he was just trolling for fun.  Certainly worth a warning or time out, if not an outright ban. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,00:19    Quote (Louis @ ,) Stevestory's announcement that the AFDave experience was going to die: Not to comment on moderation , but: If I was going to give Paley the benefit of the doubt, I'd mention that your quote of Steve was not the post that terminated afdave's thread (within the following 250 posts). Here is the relevant post, which does prominently feature the "making anticreationists look bad" angle:   Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,12:52) Announcement: [pic] I've been thinking on it overnight, and reading email, and I've come to a conclusion. A few people want to insult Davy and Davy wants to blabber nonsense and pretend he's winning and such. That's true. Some people want to Stay the Course. But the thread is worthless w/r/t the board, and figuring out new ways to call him ShitForBrains Liar Moron Embezzeler Dave is not doing anybody any good, and is degrading to the board. So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else. However, in my opinion, the quote that Louis did post, which came a short time earlier, is actually the one that is the most important, and clearly describes the situation more accurately. [eagles lost, I'm drunk, there's probly more spelling errors that I missed...]

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,02:28    Ved, Fair point well made. My only excuse is that it was late and I forgot to include it. Not a good excuse. Therefore: Ved's comment should stand as an addendum to my post, possibly giving GoP more benefit of the doubt that I originally have. Louis -------------- Bye.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,06:06    The folks here at AtBC have NEVER treated me with anything but respect, and I have felt welcomed, not discriminated against. I have noticed that those who are treated poorly are those who tend to treat others poorly.

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,09:18    As a further addendum, allow me to also point out that even after all that, Dave is still permitted to eructate his same old bull all over the time-honored tradition of The Bathroom Wall. He's plastering Jeebusdunnit stickers over perfectly good graffiti.  It's has already become "AFDave's Updated Creator God Hypothesis III" and I find that continually offensive and demeaning to the classic artwork found there. Further, the girls are quite pissed off that he's being allowed to smear his feces all over their cradle. Just so y'know. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,11:24    AH Yes indeed! Lou you bring up an excellent point. The lone cry of "THAT OFFENDS ME!". Davedoodles and GimPy might be offended by how they are treated, and whine like cut cats about it, but you'll note they aren't so considerate when other people's finer feelings might be involved. Not that anything they say is personally offensive per se. Annoying, yes. Offensive, no. Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,11:36    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,11:24) AH Yes indeed! Lou you bring up an excellent point. The lone cry of "THAT OFFENDS ME!". Davedoodles and GimPy might be offended by how they are treated, and whine like cut cats about it, but you'll note they aren't so considerate when other people's finer feelings might be involved. Not that anything they say is personally offensive per se. Annoying, yes. Offensive, no. Louis I find an awfull lot of Dave Springer Scot's posts offensive. Very offensive. The wanker bans people on UD and then tries to charachter assasinate them. That is about as low as you can go on cyberspace. Here on the other hand. You Louis often use offensive language. However the target deserves it and so I do not blame you 1 bit. Generally I find peoples behaviour here (by which I mean the regular posters) to be very good. From the perspective of a poster who has been on both sides.....this side is superior by far in both behaviour and content. My 2 cents.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,12:20    Quote You Louis often use offensive language Do I bollocks. Fuck off. Louis P.S. I am of course, joking. I can't remember who said it but it ran something like this ""Do please go away" is not a polite or adequate substitute for "Fuck directly off"". P.P.S. On a serious note I DO swear too much. Less than your average touring rugby team I grant you, but more than say, Bob Geldof. However, this is not in any way because I lack a) the vocabulary to find alternatives, or b) the sensitivity to people's feelings a gentleman should exhibit. It is because I truly think that they are the most appropriate terms for the situation. I am excruciatingly unsympathetic to dishonest people. Daveydoodles and GimPy the wonder troll are so fundamentally dishonest that I can feel myself growing a small moustache, wearing a swastika, invading Poland and instigating a genocidal pogrom against liars and creationists. Luckily though I have my razor, my swastika removal kit, my guide book to Gdansk and my "Dictator-Off Genocidal Pogrom removal kit". -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,12:32    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,12:20) Quote You Louis often use offensive language Do I bollocks. Fuck off. Louis LMFAO. Being serious, you don't really swear too much. The people it is aimed at, deserve it. You wanker!

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,12:41    Quote You wanker! Only if there's nobody watching. Louis P.S. On the issue of finding D'Tard's posts offensive. Nope. I find his continued existence offensive, but then I'm the shy, sensitive type. ;-) -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,13:13    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,12:41) Quote You wanker! Only if there's nobody watching. Louis Chickenshit. Free your body, free your mind.  Head for Leicester Square and do it there. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,14:37    Lou, I did that once. How do you think I met my wife? Louis -------------- Bye.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,19:50    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,14:37) Lou, I did that once. How do you think I met my wife? Louis How do you think I met your mother? Homo. -dt -------------- "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

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,21:32    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,14:37) Lou, I did that once. How do you think I met my wife? Louis Adds a new meaning to the phrase "trolling for chicks", doesn't it? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,22:35    I -- being the extremely sensitive and civilized sort -- cannot abide the fearful extremities of language I have encountered here; blasphemy, cursing, insults and vulgarities of the lowest, basest sort. I cringe each time my delicate sensibilites are assaulted by the filthy vileness interwoven amidst the fragile petals of logic and reason in these threads. Shame on you all!  *shakes his finger roundly* -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:31    Arden, Quote How do you think I met your mother? Homo. -dt My mother's dead. Louis P.S. Naaaaaah not really. The old dear is alive and well. It's just the best answer to any mother joke. The room goes silent, the mother joker looks guilty. The tension is best broken I find with a long pause, a serious demenour, followed by ".....I wish!" P.P.S. Child of D'Tard! YIKES! What a burden that would be. One would have to dedicate one's life to universal servitude to work off that genetic burden of bad karma. -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:35    Lou, Quote Adds a new meaning to the phrase "trolling for chicks", doesn't it? And has the pleasant advantage of making the police very reluctant to handle you. Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:54    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:35) Lou, Quote Adds a new meaning to the phrase "trolling for chicks", doesn't it? And has the pleasant advantage of making the police very reluctant to handle you. Louis Please please please. Let's not go into this pathetic level of detail. You are disturbing my mental equilibrium. The title of this thread is? hehehe The irony.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:57    Stephen, Yeah I know. Ironic isn't it? Ok enough stories about me flogging the dolphin in public places. Such things will only cause the Troll to blow his wad and start telling us that I'm a coward for not battering a wanking tramp. Anyone have any comments on my OP other than to agree or continue the wanking theme? Anyone? Anyone at all? Please! ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,05:48    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:57) Stephen, Yeah I know. Ironic isn't it? Ok enough stories about me flogging the dolphin in public places. Such things will only cause the Troll to blow his wad and start telling us that I'm a coward for not battering a wanking tramp. Anyone have any comments on my OP other than to agree or continue the wanking theme? Anyone? Anyone at all? Please! ;-) Louis Nah! Do as you please, when doing what pleases you.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,06:13    This from S Fry Esq deals with a lot of the nonsense we deal with here and abroad: Quote From his radio broadcast, "Trefusis Blasphemes": "I am a lover of truth, a worshipper of freedom, a celebrant at the altar of language and purity and tolerance. That is my religion, and every day I am sorely, grossly, heinously and deeply offended, wounded, mortified and injured by a thousand different blasphemies against it. When the fundamental canons of truth, honesty, compassion and decency are hourly assaulted by fatuous bishops, pompous, illiberal and ignorant priests, politicians and prelates, sanctimonious censors, self-appointed moralists and busy-bodies, what recourse of ancient laws have I? None whatever. Nor would I ask for any. For unlike these blistering imbeciles my belief in my religion is strong and I know that lies will always fail and indecency and intolerance will always perish." Sure he's waxing metaphorical, but that's not great crime. Louis -------------- Bye.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,07:47    Personally, I think some level of civility is necessary to ensure that a debate gets off to a good start.  Once the Creationist has shown themselves to be a confused weirdo without good intent, then you can start being uncivil.  Occaisionally they do actually have reasonably good intent, but have wondered in waaayyyy over their depth.  But on these occaisions it is usually quite clear, so I keep on being civil.   Whereas if they prevaricate and continually miss the point, i will get a bit sarcastic and ironic.  Blatant insults are no fun for me.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,07:58    Guthrie, Granted. I'd agree with all of that. And if your creationist deliberately lies, distorts, claims unwarranted "victory", libels, refuses to deal with the evidence in front of them, refuses to answer honest polite questions, projects their petty insecurities, claims it's all part of some conspiracy...etc what do you do then? Louis -------------- Bye.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,08:37    I suppose it depends on the venue.  I've been arguing with some creationists, (including one who claims not to be but does parrot their stuff) on a BBC blog.  Hence the debate has been lacking in f and c and h words, due to it being in a highly public place, and if we all started swearing at each other I'm sure the radio presenter whose blog it is might bring it up on the radio, which would be embarrasing. On the other hand, places like Guardian univeral talk and some other venues have very high tolerance of swearing and nastiness. Or you can just ban them.   It is however helpful to be able to refer back to when the creationist is being stupid, so that newcomers who ask "Why are you being so nasty?" can have a reply thus:  "See posts 3, 18, 24, 25, 26, 39 etc"

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,09:29    Guthrie, Re: BBC boards, yes absolutely, some fora are very unhappy about f and c words. I have to wonder about h words though. What are they? (Imagination seems to have failed me this afternoon) I have no problem with a creationist being stupid. Stupidity isn't a crime. I have no problem with a creationist being ignorant. Ignorance isn't a crime. I have no problem with a creationist being misled. Gullibility isn't a crime. I have no problem with a creationist being apathetic. Apathy isn't a crime. You'll never find me upset with someone just because of those traits. If a creationist is deliberately dishonest in order to decieve others or to "score points", THEN you find me being extremely short with them. I consider deliberate, willful dishonesty and deliberate stupidity (as opposed to simply being a bit thick) in order to prevent oneself from conceding a lost argument or to decieve others or to play some silly point scoring game to be VASTLY more uncivil and impolite (by the very definition of those words) than calling someone fifty seven types of "bastard", three type of "twat" and a brace of "cunts". With a healthy dose of "fuckings" liberally sprinkled into the mix. Civil discourse, shit, the entirity of civilisation does not rest in any way shape or form on the use or lack of use of certain Anglo Saxon and Middle English words. The very values of the Enlightenment, the foundations of our civilisation, our system of government, our morals, thics and interpersonal relationships DO rest on the pillars of honesty and integrity in a very very real sense. Just because I use a naughty word to describe a deliberately dishonest creationist does not even remotely put me into the same league as them, i.e. someone who would delieberately distort and lie in order to decieve. I don't understand anyone who would chastise a person for using the word "cunt" (for example) before they would chastise a proven liar. Granted the use of the word "cunt" might be a distraction, a tactical error, an excuse for the lying swine it is used to describe to obfuscate in such a manner as to disguise their own wrongdoing, but that STILL doesn't absolve people's responsibility not to tolerate dishonesty in themselves or others. Dawkins dreams of a day when the phrase "A catholic child" grates on the ears in the same way the word "nigger" or the phrase "it's a man's world" do now, and for much the same reason. It's a dream I share. I also dream of a day when some freshly spavined drip of badger sputumn posing in a cassock is openly, unyieldingly, and without remorse questioned on his/her assumptive dishonesty. Why let liars get away with it? Just because they don't use the word "cunt"? I dream of a day when the standard of public and private discourse is raised to a truly civil level, one in which we respect the subjects we discuss and who we discuss them with sufficiently that we refer to the objective standard of evidence as much as we possibly can. One in which we are scrupulously honest. I would rather have Tony Blair come onto my TV and tell me that he wasn't going to listen to the "asinine opinions of a bunch of unelected cunts" than slide and slither around acheiving exactly the same result, saying exactly the same thing and have people think "oh isn't he a nice man, we think he's lying but he didn't call us "cunts" so it's ok". I'm extremely fed up (is it obvious?) with the crass double standard of openly tolerating liars because they work on their PR, and berating someone for the vastly milder offence of saying "Wait a minute, he's lying. The dishonest cunt". Louis P.S. This post contains 9 10 cunts, 2 fucks (or variants), 2 twats, 2 bastards, and 2 shits. That's including this postscript. That's a lot of cunts. P.P.S. Perhaps I should mention that an argument is formally invalidated by being based on false premises or by being dishonestly or fallaciously structured. It is not invalidated by the use of the word "cunt" at any point within it. -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,09:50    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,09:29) Guthrie, Re: BBC boards, ... Hey Louis, guess what? I do not dissagree with anything you said in that post. (again) Dishonesty anoys me more than just about anything else. One of the reasons De-Tard and the ID movement (or at least the leadership of it) bug me.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:05    h word?  Come on, did you not sleep last night?  What h word is censored here? Actually, how come the swear words are getting through? As for lying creationists, with regards to TiS, I like to inquire about how come the essay on horse evolution on their website is functionally equivalent to a creationist essay available on the web, only its had references to the flood etc removed.  If that isnt dishonest, I dont know what is.  So far the person I've asked this of has not replied. Finally, given what we use them for, and often seem obsessed with using them, why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names?

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:09    Quote h word?  Come on, did you not sleep last night?  What h word is censored here? Oops. Erm, as it happens no I didn't sleep very well, but it was inexcusable of me to forget the h word. Thanks for the reminder. Quote ...why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names? Not a clue. I've never understood why sex is "naughty" either. If you based your ideas on TV/film you'd think it was perfectly ok to give someone a baseball bat to the back of the head but an orgasm is a total no no. Go figure. Probably something to do with the French. Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:14    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,10:09) Probably something to do with the French. Louis H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys. *waves 2 fingers and goes to practice archery* Only kidding.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:42    I thought it was our "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity" kind of protestantism that did it.   Then the USA'ians took it over and mutated it into its modern forms.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,12:16    Stephen, Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this Quote H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys. isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified. The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel. Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,12:40    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,12:16) Stephen, Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this     Quote H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys. isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified. The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel. Louis Pfffft! In the words of the good duke Wellington "death to the French!" Confound them, #### your eyes! and any other "Johnny Foriegner" too. Including the #### uppity colonials on this board. /Lord Errington-Smythe (1st chief biggot) See how Civility I can be? Not a single F word. EDIT: Except for French of course.....curses! EDIT2: and Foriegner....curses squared.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,13:17    Re "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity" Does that have something to do with flagella being "designed"?

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,15:06    It was AFDave's continued practice of quote-mining to prove his points that turned his arguments into nothing more than grade school oneupsmanship.  A silly tactic that put me off replying to the rubbish he presented. I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything (i.e. AFDave was not a "master of the quote-mined word" or "master of the creationist word definition").  In my eyes AFDave regressed as time went on.  His debating tactics were limited to begin with.  He presented hard data less and less as time went on.  When the board consistently beat his presented arguments to a pink mist time and time again then AFDave was left with nothing more than semantics and word games.  He dared not put forward any hard data to support his views because he knew the treatment that was in store for him. I support steve in closing the thread, it wasn't adding anything to any discussion this forum is created for (it's impact to the forum was complete before UCGH I was finished).  And AFDave was duly warned to "improve" his game or face restrictions and/or limitations.  Unfortunately for AFDave, he couldn't improve or change his discourse so the threatened action was carried out to the letter.  I for one was hoping that AFDave could change his stripes, but he kept up his inane semantics and c&p crusade that didn't add any worthwhile discussion to the thread or to the board. As for posting on the Bathroom Wall, at present I see the responders (troll feeders) as guilty as AFDave for the continued "discussion".  Treat AFDave on the Bathroom Wall like hereoisreal was treated on his own thread, ignore the itch and the itch should go away.  This tactic is unenforcable to everyone, but as more people stop responding then AFDave becomes more of a voice in the wilderness. Does a creationist argument sound stupid if there is no one there to hear it?  Let's find out. Mike PSS

ke. Posts: 9 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:04    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,12:40) Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,12:16) Stephen, Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this       Quote H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys. isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified. The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel. Louis Pfffft! In the words of the good duke Wellington "death to the French!" Confound them, #### your eyes! and any other "Johnny Foriegner" too. Including the #### uppity colonials on this board. /Lord Errington-Smythe (1st chief biggot) See how Civility I can be? Not a single F word. EDIT: Except for French of course.....curses! EDIT2: and Foriegner....curses squared. Well as GWB said "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur" so consequently we can blame them for screwing up the English language, making GWB a gauche petit Garçon, as well as making the English prudes       And uppity colonials ? ......Ashes 5-0 maybe you're Lordship  shouldn't have sent your best ..er 'entrepreneurs' to The Provence of Georgia and then Botany Bay (snicker)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:21    K.E. Don't make me explain again what Test matches are a test of. ;-) BTW well done. We were shocking. Ach how the mighty are fallen. But we will rise again, oh yes, we will. Not for a while probably! Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:29    Quote (ke. @ Jan. 16 2007,03:04) And uppity colonials ? ......Ashes 5-0 maybe you're Lordship  shouldn't have sent your best ..er 'entrepreneurs' to The Provence of Georgia and then Botany Bay (snicker) Don't think I don't know what you are up to here. You are trying to prove superior sporting prowess for the side you support and are stooping to using facts. You dastardly swine. All sorts could be proven if you use facts. Sneaky underhanded tactic.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:05    As a soon-to-be resident of Aotearoa, Bay of Plenty region (what you pakeha bastards call New Zealand)...I have only one thing to say: Go All Blacks!. This has nothing to do with the fact that my honey's brothers -- all six of them-- are huge Mo-Fo's that back the side, and they're not the biggest guys in the entire extended family. 157-167 cm, 113-122 kg seems the average. If you hear me screaming, send lawyers, guns and money. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:17    Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,00:05) ... Go All Blacks!... Yeh, all blacks. Go. In fact, bugger off. As far away as possible. Ok Ok Ok I quotemined, distorted etc. "C'Mon Wigan!" (but the 1980's cool Wigan, rather than the wasted remnant we have now). EDIT: F'Kin antipodeans think they are goood just coz they win most competitions. Bloody Johnny upstarts the lot'a'ya!

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,09:01    Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien. Louis * Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty. -------------- Bye.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,10:02    Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,08:05) As a soon-to-be resident of Aotearoa, Bay of Plenty region (what you pakeha bastards call New Zealand)...I have only one thing to say: Go All Blacks!. This has nothing to do with the fact that my honey's brothers -- all six of them-- are huge Mo-Fo's that back the side, and they're not the biggest guys in the entire extended family. 157-167 cm, 113-122 kg seems the average. If you hear me screaming, send lawyers, guns and money. Now, now supporting the All Blacks in NZ is PURELY voluntary. Doing it in Australia - a calling, for expat Kiwis, especially since it get up the noses of our colonial cousins. <snigger> -------------- 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

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:34    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:01) Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien. Louis * Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty. Let's be fair to demaillen.  He/she is probably unaware of the history of Avo, and probably only wants to ensure civil discourse so that we remain above the fundies and their level (i.e. don't sink to their level.)  It's an important thing to remember, as I know that sometimes I step over the line and need reminding from time to time.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:43    Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05) ... lawyers, guns and money. I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:50    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2007,18:43) Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05) ... lawyers, guns and money. I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is? Autodidact, IQ 150+ DaveTard?

Ra-Úl Posts: 93 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:50    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2007,17:43) Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05) ... lawyers, guns and money. I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is? Warren Zevon, the immortal Warren's immortal song "Lawyers, Guns and Money". You're either very very young (anyone at all younger than I am), or, or, oh, heck, this is a thread about civility. . . go download the song and learn it. It comes in handy. Ra-Ul -------------- Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,18:58    Raul = correct, that was my reference. And a #### great song, exemplary of Zevon's genius. edit: steve--I'm trying to locate if it has anything to do with Hunter S. Thompson, but it seems to keep coming back to Zevon more or less originating it as a catchphrase. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,19:00    Quote I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything mastery of bation, perhaps? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,02:52    OK, Ported from the Avo "thread": Demallien 1 Cedric 1 Louis 1 Demallien 2 Deadman 1 Cedric 2 Louis 2 Demallien 3 Darth 1 Demallien 4 Louis 3 Demallien 5 Louis 4 GCT 1 GCT 2 SteveStory 1 Lenny 1 Demallien 6 Demallien 7 Demallien 8 Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,03:05    Quote (GCT @ Jan. 31 2007,17:34) Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:01) Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien. Louis * Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty. Let's be fair to demaillen.  He/she is probably unaware of the history of Avo, and probably only wants to ensure civil discourse so that we remain above the fundies and their level (i.e. don't sink to their level.)  It's an important thing to remember, as I know that sometimes I step over the line and need reminding from time to time. It's 'she'.  And I've been around on PT long enough to be well aware of Avocationist's history.  The thing is, in the recent thread, she has been polite, and as far as I can tell, honest.  Previous efforts should not be held against a person, when it's clear that they have ceased infringing.  Otherwise I would be obliged to treat Louis as a bullying git for the rest of his days...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,03:51    Demallien, Quote OK, Louis, let's look at the "argument" then.  In gross terms, I called Lenny on abusive behaviour, and you butted in, and attacked me (well, originally just my critique of Lenny, but it's got steadily more personal the longer things have gone on) instead.  That, overall, Louis, is the "argument".  Everthing else is to be read in that context. You're right about the quote I gave defending Lenny's annoyance.  You can infact interpret it very narrowly, as you propose.  Indeed, at first, that's how I interpreted it too.  But later on, with your own admission that you are downright abusive, and that you aren't going to apologise with that, plus the famous frying pan comment have caused me to re-evaluate the first quote more widely, with 'annoyance' becoming an euphimism for 'abuse'. I think this first bit sums up your problem. You consider people's tone "abusive" if the word "fuck" (or whatever) is used, I don't. When I said I was occasionally abusive I wasn't defending outright abuse in the sense of your pub analogy, or even saying I do it (I don't) what I was talking about was that, as a fallible human being I am far from above calling a lying wanker a lying wanker should the mood take me (and additionally I could [and have] mount a relatively robust defense of said terminology). This directly implies that there must be some prior history of lying wankerism before the utterance is made. So no Demallien, I have NOT admitted to being abusive in the sense YOU mean it, I have admitted to being abusive in the sense I mean it, and have taken great pains to define what that is. Nice strawman, no dice. Here's the full comment: Quote I agree with you that simply abusing Avo (or anyone like her) is not the way forward, and sorry but I personally have not SIMPLY abused anyone ever. Note key word. I might get extremely pissed off with people mincing about and being dishonest before you would do so, and I'll cheerfully hold my hands up to being an intolerant bastard on that front. And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts. We can tell the part you quote isn't the full thing because, in the interests of naughty grammar, I started the section you quote with a conjunction, "and". The full quote rather molifies your use of it doesn't it? Not only that but it refers to my eplanation of what abuse is and isn't, something you continually miss. Also you seem to be under the incredibly erroneous impression that you have been attacked personally. Need I point out the irony of this from someone who has called me a bully, insinuated that I am a coward (with no basis in fact might I add), said I'm condescending, aggressive (hold my hand high up on this one! ), judgemental and snide. I could take offense if I were a sensitive flower! Luckily I'm not. This again is I think your reading of "tone" as you wish to see it, not (perhaps) as it is. Granted I am far from above sarcasm, but when, after going around this I think three times and you STILL are pulling a Humpty Dumpty (words mean whatever I say they mean) my patience, such as it is, is being tried. I have made it abundantly clear precisely what I mean by the word abuse (amongst other things), precisely what I consider abusive and precisely when and where I would or do use abuse. You are free to differ, but at least do so by answering the points and questions I've made rather than insisting your interpretation is the correct one and my own clearly stated one is not. The simple fact that you repeatedly infer that what YOU mean abuse to be (your, let's be honest, ridiculous and inaccurate pub analogy) is what I mean it to be when I have clearly stated that it isn't and defined what it IS doesn't fill me with any confidence that this is a productive discussion. Sorry if you don't like that. The rest of your post is paranoid blither. Sorry, but it's just amusing. You seem to have taken massive umbrage at the question "are you an old friend Demallien?". Dare I say thanks for proving my point for me. You are so keen to see abuse and so keen to see hostility that you'll twist anything to be so. I freely admit to a degree of paranoia in even asking that question, but I'm also sad to say that I've often be proven right when I ask it. If have have unduly wronged you Demallien, then I apologise unreservedly. As a corrollary to that apology I will mention that your desire to see hostility where none exists and the manner in which you argue thus far does put me in mind of another poster. If my fallible human mind has made a connection and pattern which is false, then I can only say that I was wrong to make that connection and apologise. As for ad hominem and my thinking you're a creationist, sorry but where have I done that (outside your interpretation of course)? I couldn't give a hoot if you are a creationist or not, I'm pretty sure that your evangelical atheist status and support of evolutionary biology is irrelevant to this discussion as indeed is mine. I'm chuffed we're on the same "team" but so what? Not only do I not think in "team" on this or indeed many other issues (I prefer to deal with people as individuals as far as is practicable). Would you like me to read a number of possible inferences into this particular comment of yours? Just to reiterate, ad hominem, where? Where have I made any argument of the form "Demallien (or anyone) is a nasty X/does nasty X/has nasty X and therefore his/her argument about unrelated topic Y is false"? Simple answer is I haven't. I don't expect an apology of course, just like I didn't expect one when you deliberately quote mined (yes that is taken out of context and inserted your own meaning)what I said about Lenny's justifiable annoyance (not abuse, there is STILL a difference). You even admit you were wrong to do so right before flipping back to justifying your "interpretation". Sorry chum, no dice yet again. Frying pans. Now Demallien, like I said before you are a very uncharitable reader of what I wrote, it is just possible isn't it that I said what I meant (that the frying pan analogy was a cartoon, a humourous mental image like a Roadrunner cartoon)? If we really want to get all lit crit about the use of people's imagery might I draw your attention to your own comments re: dental rearrangement? I'm just curious to note that the first instance of what you in your own words consider abusive imagery was done by you. Personally, I don't consider that use of image abusive, but you do by the force of your own words. Dare I offer an OOPS on your behalf? Oh and my writing lacks clarity? Perhaps you aren't sufficiently intelligent or well educated to comprehend the plainly written English word. This is, I will hasten to add, a possibility I don't even want to begin to consider, but if we are being honest it is at least at first glance a likely a possibility as my writing being obscure. I could make the comment that, since you seem keen to insist that what I mean by a term that I have clearly defined is what YOU mean by a term, less clearly defined if at all, that I have a degree of evidence to support this most unfortunate possibility. But then I'm more charitable than you, so I won't. Perhaps Demallien, you might find I am eminently more reasonable if you assume I mean precisely what I say, rather than what you THINK I mean. That will also apply to your doubtless forthcoming character assassination based on my invidious and evil posts past. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:07    OH and P.S. You have ignored repeated requests from me to answer a simple question: Quote That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter? Quote Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying? I also asked this same question with reference to the productivity of discussion. This is not irrelevant and cuts to the very heart of why I would defend Lenny's annoyance (and perhaps even how he has expressed it, this is a separate issue as I remind you frequently) and decry someone else's dishonesty. Here's another analogy: in a war torn city my army had just conquered I would shoot those soliders who raped and merely punish those soldiers who looted. This is becaue I am explicitly making the value judgement that rape is a more severe crime than looting. Perhaps this is an imperfect analogy. On a message board such as this I consider dishonesty, willful ignorance (not mere default ignorance) and obfuscation as VASTLY more a hinderance to civil, rational, informative, productive discourse than any amount of what you might consider "abuse" (excepting the one straw scenario you make of the second a creationist enters a room someone yells "ARGH BLOODYFUCKCREATIONISTCUNTBUBBLESCUMBAGCUMSKIPBLEARGHH" which we both agree is not very useful and bloody horrible). Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:20    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,03:51) Louis, I'm not going to waste people's time trying to argue the difference between what you have written, and what you have meant.  Suffice to say, considering your objections to my interpretations, that there is apparently a great difference between the two. This whole discussion has come about because I told Lenny to cool it on the abuse, and you jumped in to defend him.  Let's cut to the chase Louis.  Answer me these following, simple, questions: 1) Do you think that what Lenny has written on the Avocationist thread is abusive or not? 2) If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think that such abuse is acceptable on this forum. This is my only point in this entire farce.  I've had a gutful of you launching strawmen (don't challenge me on this one Louis, I can give you at least three from your last post alone), making insinuations against my honesty, and your suggestions that I don't know how to read.  Come on Louis, instead of dancing around with ridiculous hypotheticals, how about you tell us exactly where you stand on Lenny's actions ion the Avocationist thread.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:28    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,04:07) OH and P.S. You have ignored repeated requests from me to answer a simple question:   Quote That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?   Quote Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying? I also asked this same question with reference to the productivity of discussion. This is not irrelevant and cuts to the very heart of why I would defend Lenny's annoyance (and perhaps even how he has expressed it, this is a separate issue as I remind you frequently) and decry someone else's dishonesty. Here's another analogy: in a war torn city my army had just conquered I would shoot those soliders who raped and merely punish those soldiers who looted. This is becaue I am explicitly making the value judgement that rape is a more severe crime than looting. Perhaps this is an imperfect analogy. On a message board such as this I consider dishonesty, willful ignorance (not mere default ignorance) and obfuscation as VASTLY more a hinderance to civil, rational, informative, productive discourse than any amount of what you might consider "abuse" (excepting the one straw scenario you make of the second a creationist enters a room someone yells "ARGH BLOODYFUCKCREATIONISTCUNTBUBBLESCUMBAGCUMSKIPBLEARGHH" which we both agree is not very useful and bloody horrible). Louis I didn't answer the questions because they are strawmen Louis.  You are offering a false choice between accepting lies, or accepting abuse.  I have never claimed that I thought lying was acceptable, and I choose to accept neither.   But here's the thing: lies are not so easy to be sure of.  Unless someone blatantly contradicts themself with provable intent to deceive, or mistates a known factwith provable intent to deceive, you can't know someone is lying.  Abuse on the other hand is there before our eyes.  It can, and in my opinion should, be policed.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:41    No Demallien, they are not choices or strawmen. As I've repeatedly said this, for me, isn't just about what Lenny said to Avo, it's about a bigger consideration. How can they be strawmen if they are my opnely stated intent from the word go? Wow! Way to go. It is a simple question (actually two) which do you consider ruder, dishonesty or abuse, and which do you consider less conducive to productive discussion, dishonesty or abuse. It's not an either/or or black/white question it's a question about where YOU personally place the two naughtinesses relative to one another. So even your "interpretation" of  very simple questions is paranoidly seeing hostility where none exists. Yet again I note that you are insisting that what YOU think I mean is what I mean when I've said it really isn't. I'll tell you what Demallien, I'll answer your questions when a) you answer mine, and b) you deal with my argument as it is, not as you think it is. I am not responsible for your strawmen, sorry. Louis P.S. Let's just remind you what you are objecting to (added in edit) Quote He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo. Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous. Eh, but what do I know. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:49    Actually, scratch all the above, I've got a better idea. In the interests of a productive and civil discussion where no one is called a bully or has their ability to read for comprehension questioned (or what have you), how about we try this: Demallien: you define what you mean by abuse, with examples. I'll do the same. Sound fair? Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:54    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,04:41) I'll tell you what Demallien, I'll answer your questions when a) you answer mine, and b) you deal with my argument as it is, not as you think it is. I am not responsible for your strawmen, sorry. Louis P.S. Let's just remind you what you are objecting to (added in edit) Quote He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo. Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous. Eh, but what do I know. Louis Yes, they are strawmen Louis.  The discussion has always been about Lenny's behaviour.  You chose to reply to a post that talked explicitly and uniquely about Lenny's abuse of Avocationist. And, in case you missed the obvious, I've already answered your questions.  If I haven't been clear enough, I'll answer them again, so that the slow of wit can keep up: Neither lying, nor abuse is acceptable.  As neither is acceptable, the question of which is "worse" is completely redundant. Now, how about you answer mine.  Or are you going to try and bluff your way out again?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:56    Since this sort of exchange has happened to me before ( in the AFDave thread) I'll throw my two cents in. This is what I wrote at that time, about some "mystery complainant" who had e-mailed a moderator:   Quote 1) I've made a point of actually keeping accounts on the language that I've used since I VOLUNTEERED to tone down my use of "profanity" ---and the WORST thing that I've said since then was "calling Dave "fecal slime" for deliberately skewing my statements on chess-playing computers and saying that I somehow claimed natural selection was "intelligent." Last that I looked, "feces" wasn't "obscene" 2) I don't view my deliberate use of insults as "madness" nor does the use of any profanity neccessarily indicate "anger." I take issue with anyone small-minded enough to claim this. 3) The mystery e-mailer uses " you can bet your ass" while bemoaning the use of profanities? 4) The e-mailer expresses concern simultaneously that lurkers may misinterpret Occam and myself...then states that lurkers have " by and large decloaked" so (apparently) the thread should be closed due to lack of ...what, readership? And the e-mailer is "concerned" about non-existent readers?  If there's so few readers, then why be concerned about how a few may interpret my use of insults? And why should I care if Dave will carry my insults about as indictments of how mean scientists are? IF a person is so stupid as to accept Dave's word for things, WITHOUT looking at the data, then that person isn't going to be amenable to any kind of rational persuasion -- I give you Dave as an example of that. 5) IF any of my colleagues or friends DELIBERATELY went about lying, weaseling, using the tactics Dave has here, you can bet **your** ass I would use harsh language to express my displeasure. 6 ) I agree that words have meaning and there are many types of verbal aggression, ranging from slight disparagement, slurs, to outright "vile" language...but WHAT terms are considered "vile" vary from context to context both geographically and temporally. Shakespeare is replete with outright vulgarities ("bescumber, "pizzle," coynt" ) The Bible contains terms and images ( "Song of Solomon" anyone?) considered obscene and blasphemous at many time periods ( including DIRECTIONS to eating shit) . There is a huge degree of arbitrariness about what IS vulgar and what is not--If we were consistent, yelling 'Angels!', 'Mucous!', and 'Birthing!' would be just as bad as saying "Christ!", shit! or Damm!". During the Victorian period, a LEG was "vulgar" and a gentleperson spoke of a piano "limb" -- I'm sure you would be thrown out of a party if you even said "groin," yet today this is seen as quaint....which itself ( the word "quaint") meant "cunt" in Shakespeare's day (Chaucer used it as well). So, today, what IS profanity and blasphemy? "Damm","Crap" "bitch" and other terms are found in all mass media. But people are interested in POWER, so they try to control language, as Orwell pointed out. What are the effects of this? Well, there are over 400 instances of book censorship reported each year to the American Library Association...because of "vulgar" ideas and words. Look at the example of censorship in Panama City, Florida, where "not too long ago, the grim children's book , "I Am the Cheese" by Robert Cormier, and also "About David" by Susan Beth Pfeffer... were targeted by censors for being "depressing, vulgar, and immoral." They were banned from the curriculum. But this was just the beginning. One year later, 65 further books were removed from the curriculum and from classroom libraries for being "vulgar," "obscene," or "sexually related." Among the affected works were three works of the American canon: "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, Stephen Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage," and John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -along with "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Bronte and four of Shakespeare's plays... They were only protecting, they felt, impressionable young Floridians from Shakespeare's "lack of moral tenor." Three other Shakespeare plays were on their hit list as well: King Lear, The Merchant of Venice, and Twelfth Night." ( Quoted from http://www.macondo.nu/Hemliga/hemliga_extra_Garret.htm) 7)  I realize that people have their own ideas of propriety. I realize that they want to put on the best possible face to informal forums like this, but THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE. Neither I nor anyone ELSE here represents " all scientists" or "science" in general, and anyone stupid enough to think so is simply too stupid to care about. I also realize that people who view my RECENT use of language as somehow unbearably or degradingly obscene ...are not going to be mollified by any of the points I make here...they can argue that ANY vulgarity denigrates science and would cause the fundamentalists to cry out( yet Cheney and Bush use "a$$hole" and "fuck" in other arenas without any great outcry from the religious right). That leads me to my last point...hypocrisy I don't believe that terms for sex or bodily functions are "obscene" People try to control the language of others to control PEOPLE, and I'm not real fond of that. The most common objections to "vulgarities" or "Profanity" is that  ( as the emailer above claimed) it's "uncivilized" yet it's present in all civilizations, bar none. I would argue that a CIVILIZED person would prefer to use vulgarities to actual violence or even INDIRECT actions leading to harm, such as firing a worker or banning them from a Mormon church,for example,  and I sure as he11 would have preferred Bush to cuss out Saddam rather than attack him, but I suppose the emailer is looking for a perfect world, in which no "offensive" language is ever used as insult...yet even the Victorians couldn't eliminate it, or the hypocrisy that follows it. The Victorians initially saw no vulgarity in child labor and tenements, and were quite fond of jabbering on about "wogs"  but G_D forbid anyone should mention a bull ("male beast" was preferred) So where does it end? It doesn't so far as history as shown. Ever. People will argue profanity  "looks bad" ...but then the question becomes WHEN? WHERE? If I use"fecal slime" and not "shit stain" that's okay?  If i say it in French? Tagalog? If I say "FECES" that's GOOD...FOR NOW, but eventually, should that be tossed out, too? I ALWAYS have given substantive arguments ALWAYS, and I have also "cussed" and I'm not real impressed with ANYONE that cannot separate out the two and only seeks to control language " for appearance's sake" Others would argue that it's "for the children's sake" that we need to censor the use of language deemed inappropriate... and I'd argue that's nonsense too. We lie to kids every day in this and all other human societies. To claim that children would be harmed by ordinary vulgarities is simply a means of keeping control over children and not allowing them to face the world in which Bush and Cheney DO use such terms, and it's found on the radio and television and newspapers and books. The age for this to be explored is up to each parent, but I have no problem in discussing these topics with ANY kids. There is a happy medium here and I DO have to seek balance--which is PRECISELY why I "toned down" my language for well over 90 "pages" of this thread, even though I wasn't directly asked to. I'll be happy to be left out of the e-mailer's complaints, too. Finally, I'd like to leave on this note: Banish the use of those four-letter words Whose meanings are never obscure. The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds Were vulgar, obscene and impure. But CHERISH the use of the weak-kneed phrase That never says quite what YOU mean -- Far better to stick to a hypocrite's ways, Than be vulgar, or coarse or obscene. *********************************** I don't have a lot of patience with the kind of blithering, sanctimonious, hypocritical Grundyism that the emailer laid out. If this were a FORMAL forum, I might have never even used "fecal slime" but I wasn't aware that at least one person here found that so offensive that they were ready to get the vapours. I realize that you're interested in HOW Avocationist ticks, Demallien, but it seems to me that we already have moderators that can be appealed to rather than try to demand that others follow our personal dictates. It also strikes me as control-freakish to insist that people follow one's own notions of propriety, which can vary wildly. It also seems apparent to me that this can be an unending game of finding "offense" in any least unintended insult or use of "offensive" language and reporting it. I also note that while I was unfailingly polite to Avocationist, she was impolite to me by using crass generalizations and insulting me and my dear, dear umm.."friend" (okay, she's VERY near and dear to me)   Serendipity here:   Quote It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here. I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage. Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48209  (note that is page two of this thread) Now, if I were a control freak, I could have started screaming then for a moderator to chastise Avocationist... but being tolerant, I decided not to bother...particularly since I can certainly do better at insult and invective than she can. Here (again, second page of this thread) Avocationist claims that somehow I was tossed from UD twice because I was in error: Quote Deadman, People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. And it goes on and on. She avoided every major point and wants to fade into ambiguity and b-s while it's obvious that she knows nothing about the science topics she's dealing with. She insults and uses "cussing" as well (she used the word "shit" on page 4, I believe)... she eschewed  directly answering direct polite questions, and **I** was unfailingly polite. I did that as an experiment, by the way. And I don't find anything wrong with calling her a lying little ___ (fill in the blank) at all now, but you do, Demallien. So complain to a moderator. Again, that's just my two cent's worth and I'm not trying to personally offend you, Demallien...I'm just suggesting that your course of action may not have been all that effective, either. And I don't excuse Louis at all, he's almost as abrasive as I am. Okay, he might be worse, but that's neither here nor there. He smells funny. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:57    ####, I've got to start remembering to edit the quotes before hitting "add reply"....

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:59    Demallien, I don't need to bluff, since post #1 I've been totally upfront about that which I consider to be important. Like I said I'll answer your questions when you a) answer mine and b) deal with my argument as it is. Until then there is no point answering your questions because you won't understand the answers just as you don't understand my arguments now. I can't help that, that's YOUR issue, not mine. Waving the relative importance of the two issues aside with a cheeky handwave is not the same as dealing with them. The question is precisely about the relative importance! I already know you don't like dishonesty etc, you've said as much I'm asking a different question you seem reluctant to answer. I wonder why. DO you see a trap that isn't there? Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:03    Quote Okay, he might be worse, but that's neither here nor there. He smells funny. I am worse dammit! What were we talking about? Oh and that smell: soap. Familiarise yourself with it, forthwith, if not fifthwith. Or at least a powerful eau de cologne, although why anyone would want to smell like a German city I have no idea. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:12    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,05:56) I'm not the kind of person that goes running to the teacher when I have a problem with someone, deadman.  If I have a problem, I will attempt to resolve it with that person first, as an adult.  It is only after an attempt to talk through the problem fails that I would go to the moderator.  Ask our moderator, I'm sure he prefers my idea to yours - he doesn't want to be continually having to sit in judgement of people on this list. But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word).

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:18    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,05:59) Demallien, I don't need to bluff, since post #1 I've been totally upfront about that which I consider to be important. Like I said I'll answer your questions when you a) answer mine and b) deal with my argument as it is. Until then there is no point answering your questions because you won't understand the answers just as you don't understand my arguments now. I can't help that, that's YOUR issue, not mine. Waving the relative importance of the two issues aside with a cheeky handwave is not the same as dealing with them. The question is precisely about the relative importance! I already know you don't like dishonesty etc, you've said as much I'm asking a different question you seem reluctant to answer. I wonder why. DO you see a trap that isn't there? Louis Louis, I've answered your questions.  I can't respond to your "argument", because it's never clearly stated anywhere, and even if it where, it probably doesn't interest me greatly.  But sure, put in a clear concise statement of what this "argument" and I'll have a bash.  In the meantime, I repeat: 1) Was Lenny abusive in the Avocationist thread, and 2) If so, do you believe such behaviour is acceptable or not. Come on Louis, what are you hiding?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:24    Quote But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word). Actually, I didn't say that. The crux of my argument was that one should go to the moderator and not try to get compliance with their personal notions of propriety first, particularly when such notions vary wildly. And I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk. Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:24    Quote Louis, I've answered your questions.  I can't respond to your "argument", because it's never clearly stated anywhere, and even if it where, it probably doesn't interest me greatly.  But sure, put in a clear concise statement of what this "argument" and I'll have a bash.  In the meantime, I repeat: 1) Was Lenny abusive in the Avocationist thread, and 2) If so, do you believe such behaviour is acceptable or not. Come on Louis, what are you hiding? The argument isn't clearly stated anywhere? Wow! So many people seem to be able to understand it and yet you don't. Try reading this whole thread, it's only 3 pages I'm sure you'll manage. If you do so without the red mist before your eyes I'm at least relatively confident you'll understand where I (and indeed many others) are coming from. As for hiding something? Nope, sorry. Just unwilling to be dictated to by someone who manifestly cannot read for a modicum of comprehension, or who is manifestly unwilling to try. I don't know which it is, but it's one of them. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:30    Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not.  Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear. And you still haven't answered my questions...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:34    Deadman, This is my area of confusion also. Demallien seems either incapable of reading, or being unwilling to read, a relatively simple (and in no way hidden or cryptic) argument. He/She/It seems very easily offended and insulted, reading interpretations into people's comments that simply and statedly are not there, whilst at the same time making wild and at least potentially offensive (certainly derogatory) statements about those people. It seems there is a poor degree of ability for self analysis there. You've noticed a similarity with Avocationist, I've noted one with GoP. Like I said before I'm happy to be wrong (note how easily this comment will be missed), dammit I HOPE I'm wrong, about sock puppetry, but let's be honest, it wouldn't be the first or the last time I was right about it. That's the problem with net discussions: too anonymous, too distant, no consequences. I think the number of olive branches I've extended already would give any reasonable individual pause, apparently not. I wonder why. Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:36    Out of curiosity (and from the other thread which I interact under Fractatious and Serendipity), but that Dem your first post actually had nothing to do with the topic of ID (I could be wrong and will happily look back over that thread) and now its led to this thread (which was nice of Louis to do). However, the other thread started with "ID and support of it". From my point of view this is merely emotive diversion - if there is a real issue with posts and individuals - that would be something better taken up with the moderators.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:36    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:24)   Quote But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word). Actually, I didn't say that. The crux of my argument was that one should go to the moderator and not try to get compliance with their personal notions of propriety first, particularly when such notions vary wildly. And I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk. Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" And you haven't answered mine, "demallien" Your orthography/grammar and "tone" are all amusingly similar to Avocationist. Why do you think that would be? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:41    No Louis, I'm not GoP, I'm me.  You asked a while back if I'm British.  No, I'm Australian, living in Paris... But if you think I'm GoP, please, why oh why oh why have I been posting all of those pro science/evolution posts?  Have a squiz on the PT blogs for example, or even just have a look at my earlier posts on the Avocationist thread. Anyway, why don't you just ask the moderators to confirm my IP address is not shared by GoP.  I'm sure they'll be happy to confirm...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:46    Quote Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not. Erm sorry, just where have I said this? Thus far I have, quite deliberately, made no comment about whether or not I consider Lenny's "abusive behaviour" "acceptable" or otherwise. Quote Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear. And you still haven't answered my questions... And I say again: READ.THE.THREAD. I know it's more than two sentences, and I know it's a fag to do it, but since I consider you to be an intelligent adult capable of reasoned argument I'll cheerfully accept an "Ok, it'll take me a while, can I get back to you?" with an equally cheerful "Of course Demallien, you take all the time you need. Look forward to discussing it with you". As for your questions, like I said, I'll cheerfully answer them when you a) answer mine, and b) deal with my argument as it is. The reason I ask this is because, at the moment, based on your current erroneous assessment of my comments I have no hope that you will understand the answers I give. Why waste both our time going over old ground for a fourth (??) time. You demonstrate you understand what I'm talking about by going away and reading it, I'll answer your questions. Deal? Oh by the way, your real name wouldn't be Alison would it? Just curious, nothing implied, just asking. Louis Added in edit: P.S. I am EXTREMELY happy to take your word that you are not GoP. I am equally EXTREMELY happy to note that you are not GoP! I should stress this happiness is entirely altruistic, I am happy FOR YOU! LOL. BTW I said I noted a similarity, not that you WERE absolutely GoP. Please learn to tell the difference between an absolutist statement of belief or fact and a proposition. I am very pleased to be wrong about my suspicions. I apologise for any and all offense caused by even asking the question. -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:47    Hi Louis, I mentioned to Deadman some stuff I picked up. Like the point that Dem joined under a week ago. Also that the structural pattern is similar. I have a habit of making comparisons because thats what I'm paid to do - I am paid to detect patterns in human behaviour, and notice nuances. That aside (and easily equated to personas again) its successfully brought the other thread to a stand-still - for now. So perhaps Dem's complaints can be taken up by the moderators. Just a thought.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:48    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:36) And you haven't answered mine, "demallien" Your orthography/grammar and "tone" are all amusingly similar to Avocationist. Why do you think that would be? Oh, I didn't answer the question because I thought the question was rhetorical.  Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot".  Note, I use English spelling of words, Avocationist uses American spelling.  I post during European daytime, Avocationist posts during the american daytime.  Do the sums...

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:49    "squiz" is the first aussie slang I've seen you use, demallien...and it's interesting that you used it right at the same time that you say you're australian living in paris...as if to "confirm" that. What threads did you post in at PT, demallien? I'd like to take a look at those. Avocationist used American orthography? and you chose to insult me again? tsk -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:58    Fractatious, I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument. If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind. Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:59    Whether or not I think you're a puppet is irrelevant to the immediate discussion, demallien...what is relevant is that you insult in the same manner you decry, even insulting avocationist...as in this bit: Quote You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4215;p=48355 Just as you insulted me for my civil queries statements/here. Then you go running around trying to dictate how others should comport themselves? Pfft. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:01    Quote because you're a blithering idiot AIIIIIIIIIIIII ABUSE!!!!! ABUSE!!!!! ABUSE!!!! Hmm pottle ket black? Something like that. ;) Louis P.S. I should perhaps make it clear that I don't really think this qualifies as abuse. Deadman clearly is a blithering idiot and smells a lot worse than I do. And I've had his mum, and she was rubbish. And all my friends have had his mrs and she was rubbish too. BLAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAEURGH! Ok no more drinking at lunchtime for me! See under H for humour. -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:03    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:49) "squiz" is the first aussie slang I've seen you use, demallien...and it's interesting that you used it right at the same time that you say you're australian living in paris...as if to "confirm" that. What threads did you post in at PT, demallien? I'd like to take a look at those. Avocationist used American orthography? and you chose to insult me again? tsk You see deadman, as I've explained previously, I don't take kindly to accusations of dishonesty.  Expects insults in return. Yes, Avocationist uses American spelling, at least, when I stepped back to have a quick look, I found that she wrote "honorable" not "honourable".  I'm sure there are other examples, but I honestly can't be bothered looking... As for my posts on PT, feel free to Google "demallien pandas thumb".  You'll get plenty of hits.  Actually, I just checked - you'll only get a few hits: lazy google!  Anyway, they should be enough to add a bit of credence to my identity... I don't have to prove who I am deadman, and anyway, I don't see any way of actually convincing you whilst our conversation remains in the virtual.  I've asked the moderator to confirm that my IP address is not the same as those of Avocationist and GoP.  With a bit of luck, he'll give us an answer.  If not, you can always try asking him to do the verification yourself...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:05    Quote Added in edit: P.S. I am EXTREMELY happy to take your word that you are not GoP. I am equally EXTREMELY happy to note that you are not GoP! I should stress this happiness is entirely altruistic, I am happy FOR YOU! LOL. BTW I said I noted a similarity, not that you WERE absolutely GoP. Please learn to tell the difference between an absolutist statement of belief or fact and a proposition. I am very pleased to be wrong about my suspicions. I apologise for any and all offense caused by even asking the question. Note this I added in edit Demallien. Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:07    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,23:58) Fractatious, I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument. If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind. Louis Louis, I'm not complaining about the disruption - considering the lack of substantiation on the other thread by Avocationist dispite the numerous requests - something had to give. But thank you for considerately pulling the "dispute" onto this thread, therefore laying the foundations for me to reintroduce the original topic back onto the thread. I moderate an AvC email group. Because of the nature of the group complaints sprout their heads. Merely a warning towards the diversity of content, and also that people are not forced to read and/or post assists in the area of "complaints". Also being an email discussion group, I encourage people to use their spam filters. I am not sure if these boards have any such facilities - if they do, they should be stressed. However I am now curious as to what is termed as "abuse".

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:09    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:59) Whether or not I think you're a puppet is irrelevant to the immediate discussion, demallien...what is relevant is that you insult in the same manner you decry, even insulting avocationist...as in this bit:   Quote You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4215;p=48355 <sigh>Explain to me how the quote is an insult deadman.  If I had said for example "You are a goose" now that's an insult.  If I say "You make yourself look like a goose", that is an observation. On the other hand, calling you a blithering idiot in response to falsely saying that I'm lying seems like a) an insult, and b) a completely reasonable response.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:10    There is a "report this post to the moderator" under people's messages. If one is not happy - regardless of what they define abuse to be - they should use it. Just a thought.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:10    Quote You see deadman, as I've explained previously, I don't take kindly to accusations of dishonesty. I hadn't insulted you before you insulted me, ---------- and I didn't accuse you of being similar to avocationist until after you had insulted me by presuming to know what I thought :   Quote You too feel that it's your right to abuse people Try again for an excuse. More importantly, demallien, this goes to the core of what I said earlier. You view direct cussing as demeaning and insulting, but you view snide asides and veiled insults as acceptable. You find it unacceptable that others insult, but you see fit to do so even when you have not been directly insulted yourself. The best you can say is that I "questioned your honesty" and you respond in a manner much like Lenny. tsk, tsk, demallien -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:11    Fractatious, I doubt we'll ever know what abuse is! Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:17    Well this is hardly a formal debate with a mediator to assure opponents are kept on track. If it were, I'd be laying complaints about every ID'er I encounter based on "lack of education" and "wasting time" because they end up getting a FREE education (unless there is a way to charge them for condensing 6 years of biology into single threads). "How DARE you abuse my TIME" I also consider Benny Hinn's hair to be abusive.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:17    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:30) Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable. I have not been "abusive".  I have been TRUTHFUL.  Avo ***IS*** a pig-ignorant uninformed dolt who should get her uneducated ass to a library and learn what she is talking about BEFORE she talks about it. Sorry if Avo doesn't like it. Sorry if YOU don't like it either. (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:18    By the way, I should note that I view Lenny as merely honest in his use of language. I view you as a sanctimonious hypocrite, though, demallien--beyond merely being a blithering idiot...and that's just an observation, not an insult :) -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:20    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48) Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot". You forgot "pig-ignorant". :) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:25    Quote   Quote Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not. Erm sorry, just where have I said this? Thus far I have, quite deliberately, made no comment about whether or not I consider Lenny's "abusive behaviour" "acceptable" or otherwise. I meant that you claim that the whole discussion wasn't about whether Lenny's comments were acceptable or not, not that you considered Lenny's comments as unacceptable.  Sheesh! Quote   Quote Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear. And you still haven't answered my questions... And I say again: READ.THE.THREAD. Louis, I've read the thread.  I'm not trying to pull a swifty on you.  I honestly do not know what argument you are trying to make.  Please, for the love of sanity, give it to me clearly and concisely, so that this discussion can actually go forwards! In the interim, I'm going to hasard my best guess.  Feel free to correct me if this wasn't what your argument was all about: Louis' Argument:  That being obtuse, or lying is very rude, and worse than abusing people!!! There, how did I go? In answer to that: Alli's Response (yes, I see you've discovered my real name 2 'l's though! Maybe this silliness about me being Avocationist in disguise can be put to bed now....) Being obtuse is not rude, lying is rude, but difficult to prove, and abusing people is bad too, but much easier to demonstrate.  In all cases, specific circumstances should be taken into account. Now, how about an answer to my questions: a) were Lenny's comments abusive? and b) Are abusive comments acceptable on this forum?

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:26    Quote Well this is hardly a formal debate with a mediator to assure opponents are kept on track. If it were, I'd be laying complaints about every ID'er I encounter based on "lack of education" and "wasting time" because they end up getting a FREE education (unless there is a way to charge them for condensing 6 years of biology into single threads). "How DARE you abuse my TIME" I also consider Benny Hinn's hair to be abusive. DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!! The one and only correct answer! ;) I don't mind educating the IDCists. I don't mind providing them with a wealth of info and data. I don;t mind that they ignore it. I DO mind when they lie about it or expect their ignorance to be authoritative and I do mind when they make grandiose unsupported claims based on their stated agenda. I may have made mention of this sort of thing up thread. Benny Hinn's hair? Doesn't even hold a candle to the offensiveness of the continued existence of Dembski. In a decently ordered universe he'd have to suffer the consequences of his anti-reason. (I'm thinking comedy here people, not violence. I have a mental image of a capricious deity suddenly taking great offense at ID and poofing IDCists out of existence, then recanting, poofing them back in, poofing them a flagellum etc. Basically messing about with poofery! ) Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:28    "control freak" seems appropriate, along with "sanctimonious hypocrite " and blithering idiot. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:33    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 01 2007,07:20) Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48) Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot". You forgot "pig-ignorant". :) Lol :-) Lenny, I would never presume to dream of being able to reach your level of abuse.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:35    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 02 2007,00:17) Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:30) Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable. I have not been "abusive".  I have been TRUTHFUL.  Avo ***IS*** a pig-ignorant uninformed dolt who should get her uneducated ass to a library and learn what she is talking about BEFORE she talks about it. Sorry if Avo doesn't like it. Sorry if YOU don't like it either. (shrug) I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK!

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:37    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,07:35) I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK! Actually, truth be known, if I had found Lenny's insults original, and hence amusing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the original post to start with.  It was because of the constant boring repetition that he finally annoyed me enough to complain... You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:45    Quote You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious... Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:46    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,00:33) Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48) Lenny, I would never presume to dream of being able to reach your level of abuse. Demallien, Pig-ignorant is apt. Ever chase pigs around a paddock? Ever wonder why they eventually end up running in circles making lots of noises? This is the most amusing part of my job when I go visit clients and end up being Farmer Joe having to chase bloody chooks because the male is strapped up to police monitor that will trigger security if he goes into the paddock and his elderly mother who looks like she'll drop dead just trying to climb the fence, THEN having to chase silly little pigs with a dog after you - oh yes, PIG IGNORANT is a good term. They cause a catastrophe in their wake because they run around with no clear direction! *scowls* Louis, Benny Hinn's hair is VERY abusive. Dembski merely reminds me of a contender for the special olympics - javlin up the ass competitor. (Oh god lords, I may be considered as abusive now - bite me). ID'ers and Creationists formulate their lives on purposely sifting through data to get to presuppositional bullshit, then engage in debates and DEMAND scientific substantiation. Lying then becomes a norm in order to overlook being corrected. On the "For the Love of.. " thread, I addressed Avo's points on LoT and zilch. Even with her admittance of not knowing maths, she still made a claim towards LoT, I responded and zilch. Phhttt. This is the internet, I'm sure if ID'ers can log onto a board, they can websearch for information on biology, thus saving time. Instead of wasting it.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:47    Quote I meant that you claim that the whole discussion wasn't about whether Lenny's comments were acceptable or not, not that you considered Lenny's comments as unacceptable.  Sheesh! Gosh so you DO realise that it's possible for one person to write something and for another person to read it, put an interpretation on it that was not intended and run with it. Consider that an object lesson, "Houston, we have progress"! I was wondering just how hard I was going to have to beat you over the head with this little example! ARGH NO WAIT, METAPHOR! METAPHOR!!!! NOT ABUSE!!! HELP!!! ;) See humour, not hostility. Different, really! Please may I call you Allison? I can't bloody spell Demallien! Louis is my real name btw. I have to say I prefer real names, they make things.....nicer somehow I suppose. I thought I'd do a rapid google to see if you really were GoP or not. I was extremely gratified (see above) to find you weren't. Quote Louis' Argument:  That being obtuse, or lying is very rude, and worse than abusing people!!! There, how did I go? Not too terribly.  I would quibble with "obtuse" and "abusing" because I'd like to know what you mean by them, otherwise roughly ok, but you missed out all the good bits about dishonesty being anathema to rational discourse especially in a limited forum such as this etc. I liked those bits! Quote Being obtuse is not rude, lying is rude, but difficult to prove, and abusing people is bad too, but much easier to demonstrate.  In all cases, specific circumstances should be taken into account. I'd go along with that to a large extent, again depending on what is meant by obtuse and abuse. Define what you mean if you don't mind. Quote Now, how about an answer to my questions: a) were Lenny's comments abusive? and b) Are abusive comments acceptable on this forum? Ah ah aaaaaahh! Not yet, we're getting warmer. The nuance of the argument is important too and you really need to answer the questions I asked, not the versions of them you like. Tell you what, I'll do 50%. b) Are abusive comments acceptable on this forum? No idea, I'm not the management. Are abusive comments acceptable to me? Depends on your definition of abuse and the context in which they are made. Telling a proven liar they are a liar is not abuse. Calling someone a "cunt" for simply being a creationist is abuse. I have no problem with the former (even if the word fucking is included) and a massive problem with the latter. I do make a distinction between "abuse" and "not very nice" or "blunt" or "harsh". I don't think harshness, unsympathetic assessment or bluntness is "abuse". Thus I don't think you calling Deadman "a blithering idiot" is abusive. I think it's staggeringly inaccurate and massively hypocritical (dare I say fucking hypocritical?), but very far from abusive (except in the sense, dictionary defined, that it is erroneous). Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:02    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,07:47) Quote Please may I call you Allison? I'd prefer not.  I generally try to keep the two separate, mostly because I don't like the idea of future employers being able to Google me and read up on personal details.  As it is, that dumb ruby list that you found decided to put profile information in the post header - I've been getting spam on my mail account ever since!  Anyway, I'm now going to have to wait for that forum, and now THIS forum to disappear off Google's memory banks before I have a nicely separated online persona again... Anyways, demallien is easy.  Dem Allie N, where N is my surname, and Dem was from the fact that I was a member of the Australian Democrats whilst living in Oz... Anyway Louis, I've played your game, don't go shifting the goal posts.  I've answered your questions, and your argument, now answer mine (the full version of question b was about your opinion of whether abuse on this forum is acceptable or not, not what were the current rules). Calling anyone that can confuse me with Avocationist a blithering idiot is merely a statement of fact, not innaccurate, or hypocritical.  Repeated use of the term may however be abusive... Again, circumstances...

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:03    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,00:37) Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,07:35) I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK! Actually, truth be known, if I had found Lenny's insults original, and hence amusing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the original post to start with.  It was because of the constant boring repetition that he finally annoyed me enough to complain... You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious... Inanity amuses me. Emotive verbiage amuses me. Sarcasm amuses me. I consult Diogenes of Sinope for my amusement.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:05    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,00:45) Quote You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious... Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah. Well yes there was that, and your teaching me how to flex my buttocks.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:10    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,07:45) Quote You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious... Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah. deadman, if you have nothing to offer other than negative blithering, feel free to go away.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:13    Quote deadman, if you have nothing to offer other than negative blithering, feel free to go away. BWAHAHA...after I accurately point out that while I didn't insult you, you saw fit to insult me first, while you were crying and moaning and having palpitations over other people's use of language? And now you want to try to direct the conversation away from that? You've merely further reinforced my opinion of you as an ersatz control-freak hypocrite and fool. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:14    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,00:47)   Quote I have to say I prefer real names, they make things.....nicer somehow I suppose. Hi Louis, I'm Jo (short for Josephine). My boss already knows how bad I can be both online and off so I have no problem saying I work for a Health and Social Services Provider. Google will just bring up THIS - its a considerabl waste of my time to hide my identity online, and especially on this forum where Deadman is on. Even if he was not here, it wouldn't worry me. I vehemently agree on your discussion on liars and hypocrites. Also on what you term as abuse. I'd like to reiterate again, people are not forced to read or even post. If this board does not have an ignore function, I'm sure people have the ability to just scroll past the people that they consider abusive and who they do not want to read. Jo [editted]

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:17    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,08:13) Quote deadman, if you have nothing to offer other than negative blithering, feel free to go away. BWAHAHA...after I accurately point out that while I didn't insult you, you saw fit to insult me first, while you were crying and moaning and having palpitations over other people's use of language? And now you want to try to direct the conversation away from that? You've merely further reinforced my opinion of you as a  ersatz control-freak hypocrite and fool. Everyone else has moved on deadman.  We've actually started to get to the heart of the matter.  But feel free to blither on in your corner...

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:18    Quote Thus I don't think you calling Deadman "a blithering idiot" is abusive. I do. I'm wounded to the quick, and my quick doesn't need any more abuse. I'm crying softly to myself even as I type. I may have to call up the thread police and issue a whiny complaint, or should I instead try to get everyone to agree with my ideas of civility instead? Being a control freak, I'll do the latter. So: Louis, you ignorant French slut, please realize that MY standards are the standards that the entire universe should conform to if they wish to be known as civil. Do try and rise to my arbitrary level of decency, there's a good chap, K? thnx. Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 14 2007,22:35) I -- being the extremely sensitive and civilized sort -- cannot abide the fearful extremities of language I have encountered here; blasphemy, cursing, insults and vulgarities of the lowest, basest sort. I cringe each time my delicate sensibilites are assaulted by the filthy vileness interwoven amidst the fragile petals of logic and reason in these threads. Shame on you all!  *shakes his finger roundly* HAHAHA edit: Quote Everyone else has moved on deadman. wow, you speak for EVERYONE NOW?!?! ####, you're more of a control freak than I thought. And stupid, to boot. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:21    Demallien, I was joking about it being difficult to spell. {Sigh} One tries to lighten the mood, engage in bluff cameraderie, and gets slapped in the face. Oh well. No goalposts are being moved, nuances Demallien. The Devil is in the detail. Dammit I WILL have a sensible reading of my argument out of you before christmas! ;) Like I said, whether or not you have described my argument accurately depends on your ability to define what you consider "abuse" and "obtuse". I've defined what I mean by them, as of course you'd know having read my argument so thoroughly and all. You have my full and complete answer to question b), which isn't simply what the board rules are as you would know if you had read it. Kindly do as you have been asked and you'll get a full and complete answer to question a). I'm afraid that thus far I'd have to agree with Deadman's and Fractatious's assessments of hypocrisy, hysteria, emotive verbiage and inanity. BUT please prove this assessment wrong. I want to be wrong. I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this. I beg you show us that we are wrong, please. You might doubt my sincerity here and see sarcasm where none is intended, but play a game, pretend I am not the evil, hostile, judgemental, aggressive, bully you think I am. Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:28    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,01:21) I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this. Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;) 1. The other board had a good discussion going on. 2. It was brought to a screeching halt with claims of abuse. 3. Louis was considerate enough to shift that thread to a more appropriate thread. 4. Hopefully the previous thread will restart where it left off BEFORE the claims of "abuse". 5. It's almost unanimous, that most posting here will not tolerate lying or hypocrisy. 6. Censorship does not have a strong filter on this board (good). So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:30    Question: Demallien -- when you say "everyone has moved on now" are you presuming to speak for all other posters, or are you referring to your two faces? Perhaps your other personalities? Maybe you have a mouse or rat in your...er...pocket? Or are you using a royal collective? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:32    Deadman, Here's the full quote: Quote Thus I don't think you calling Deadman "a blithering idiot" is abusive. I think it's staggeringly inaccurate and massively hypocritical (dare I say fucking hypocritical?), but very far from abusive (except in the sense, dictionary defined, that it is erroneous). So how about next time IN CONTEXT you syphillitic bastard offspring of a three century dead man-whore. After all in your leap for umbrage you seem to have missed the point that as the Arbiter of All that is Good and Tasteful (and in no way an hysterical sanctimonious hypocrite) it is actually MY set of totally arbitrary standards that rule the Universe for ever and ever and ever, so there. With knobs on. Anyway, D'Tard said I was a homo, which makes me special. And he's called me a homo more times than he's called you a homo. So there, again, with cherries on top. How do you like that selection box of assorted sweetmeats and candies? Louis P.S. Oh FUCK! I'm unconsciously channeling the Tard, JAD and several other loons! {washes brain out with bleach} -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:36    Yeah, but you're still FRENCH, Louis . I win!!! -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:43    Quote Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;) Jo (thanks btw), Tchoh! Typical woman! ;) ARGH NO!!!! STOP!!! WHY ARE YOU HITTING ME??!!?!?! Oh I get it! Quote So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all? Setting fire to sanctimonious hypocrites who complain about the use of the word "fuck"? I'M KIDDING!!!! WHY ARE YOU ALL HITTING ME AGAIN???!?!?! Oh a spanking! Excellent! No idea. I will attempt to modify my language so that I don't fucking swear so fucking much. As I'm only fucking human, I may fuck up once in a while though, so don't fuck me over about it too fucking often. Lenny should continue as is, and we should all learn to love one another for our differences, not in spite of them. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:44    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,08:30) Question: Demallien -- when you say "everyone has moved on now" are you presuming to speak for all other posters, or are you referring to your two faces? Perhaps your other personalities? Maybe you have a mouse or rat in your...er...pocket? Or are you using a royal collective? No deadman, I was referring to the fact that Jo, Louis, and I, the three other active participants in this thread, had moved on to discuss other things.  Get a clue, get a life...

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:50    Quote No deadman, I was referring to the fact that Jo, Louis, and I, the three other active participants in this thread, had moved on to discuss other things.  Get a clue, get a life... And yet both mentioned your hypocrisy and allude still to your weird behavior, just as I did in noting that you did exactly what you whined about in others. And they continued to do so after you had claimed to speak for them. As for "having a life"...again, you might want to look in the mirror. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism