RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Guts/Nelson Alonso Thread, From Telic Thoughts, With Love< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,14:42   

It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths. †In a despicable and shameless comment, Bradford has even tried to reverse the tables on the situation (I shall refrain from linking to it).

In light of this, I have decided to publish the full, unedited correspondence between Guts and myself. †If you have the patience to read it, you will walk away with only one conclusion: he is a sleazeball.

Incidentally, anon9 is me. †I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things. †I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it. †I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site. †I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog. †Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman. †anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts. †My posts here do not mention Nelson. †Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.

[Two large posts to follow.]

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:15   

Remember, at the beginning of this correspondence neither of us knew what the problem really was. †Normally I would remove the unnecessary quoting and other cruft, but I cannot risk any appearance that I have made editions. †The following is pristine and unedited. †Due to the 76800 character limit, I have split it into four parts (two should have sufficed, but the site was still dropping text).

Part 1:

Subject:
farewell -- The Design Matrix contact form
From:
Frostman <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:45 -0700
To:
furtive.clown@gmail.com

This message is for Mike Gene.

Happy vacation to you, and also a fond farewell.

As you may know, I have been banned from Telic Thoughts. †Though this may
not concern you, I have documented the banning here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518

Good luck with the book.







Subject:
farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:49:56 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, krauze_id@hotmail.com

Hello,

Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few Telic Thoughts
members who list their email address. †It's been fun.

Though you may have no interest in this, I have detailed my recent
banning from TT here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518

In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT thread in question:

http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:09:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
sorry for not being impressed. †


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello,
> >
> > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
> > Telic Thoughts
> > members who list their email address. †It's been
> > fun.
> >
> > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
> > detailed my recent
> > banning from TT here:
> >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
> >
> > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
> > thread in question:
> >
> > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
> >
> > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
> > Frostman
> >



Never miss a thing. †Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:14:43 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

By the way , your banishment is only temporary, it was
not approved by the majority of TTers, if you agree
from now on to respect the decisions of the various
blog authors, I might be able to get you back in.


--- Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a
> > 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed. †
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address. †It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > † † †
> >
> > Never miss a thing. †Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >



Never miss a thing. †Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:57:01 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I found the panda's thumb section of antievolution.org after I was banned
while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find their email addresses.
The only reason I posted there was to have a record of the event to which I
could link. †You'll see that I registered there just before posting --- I've
never been one to hang around with those who agree with me, and it's not my
choir †:)

To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have already anticipated that
objection here

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556

As you know, the issue is not that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not moved to the memory hole,
contrary to TT policy.

As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately you are unable to judge
my position and my arguments, as my posts were deleted. †You only have a
record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone. †Do you believe
Bradford's behavior is ethical? †And does his disregard for the deletion
policy hold any relevance to you?

Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT than non-ID members. †I
respond to as much as I can, and when that is not enough, I'll inevitably
hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring posts which "refute" mine.

Please forward to me any and all posts which, in your view, refute any of my
arguments. †I regret that you have been left with this impression. †However
you must cite the specific posts in question, otherwise your claims are
empty.

There is one case where I intentionally held off my responses. †In the "eyes
have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical mistake in reasoning
which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after eight times asking.
Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to his arguments while
focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those counterpoints. †I was
determined not to let that happen again, so I held off my responses.

Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue brought up by someone
else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk about that. †Bradford
escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away in the confusion of
irrelevant arguments. †In fact I attempted to explain this in that thread.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address. †It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:10:10 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is but that they were not
moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
explained to you what was happening with the deletions
(again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
told people to save comments because the memory hole
wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
I know everything that was ever posted.

Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
were acting like a baby.

So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I found the panda's thumb section of
> > antievolution.org after I was banned
> > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
> > their email addresses.
> > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
> > of the event to which I
> > could link. †You'll see that I registered there just
> > before posting --- I've
> > never been one to hang around with those who agree
> > with me, and it's not my
> > choir †:)
> >
> > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
> > already anticipated that
> > objection here
> >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
> >
> > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
> > deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
> > moved to the memory hole,
> > contrary to TT policy.
> >
> > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
> > you are unable to judge
> > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
> > deleted. †You only have a
> > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
> > †Do you believe
> > Bradford's behavior is ethical? †And does his
> > disregard for the deletion
> > policy hold any relevance to you?
> >
> > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
> > than non-ID members. †I
> > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
> > enough, I'll inevitably
> > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
> > posts which "refute" mine.
> >
> > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
> > your view, refute any of my
> > arguments. †I regret that you have been left with
> > this impression. †However
> > you must cite the specific posts in question,
> > otherwise your claims are
> > empty.
> >
> > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
> > responses. †In the "eyes
> > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
> > mistake in reasoning
> > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
> > eight times asking.
> > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
> > his arguments while
> > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
> > counterpoints. †I was
> > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
> > off my responses.
> >
> > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
> > brought up by someone
> > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
> > about that. †Bradford
> > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
> > in the confusion of
> > irrelevant arguments. †In fact I attempted to
> > explain this in that thread.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
>> > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>> > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
>> > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>> > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>> > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>> > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
> > we
>> > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
> > a 4
>> > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
>> > > sorry for not being impressed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Hello,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
> > few
>>> > > > Telic Thoughts
>>> > > > members who list their email address. †It's been
>>> > > > fun.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>> > > > detailed my recent
>>> > > > banning from TT here:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
> > TT
>>> > > > thread in question:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. †http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:15:54 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I don't even understand what you are saying now. †Please bear with me.
Previously you said,

"You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you would
ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other threads as well, such as
the Fodor one)"

So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in your opinion, I ignored
posts which refuted my assertions? †This doesn't even make sense. †When did
I do that? †And when has such an opinion been sufficient grounds for
deletion?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. †Are you saying the memory hole
works for you, but not for Bradford?

I promise that I am acting in good faith. †There is obviously something I'm
not understanding about the situation.

"So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer?"

I don't even understand the offer. †Do you agree with Bradford's decision to
jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy? †Does TT have a deletion
policy, or not? †I am not ignoring your offer --- I am just trying to
understand it.

Frostman


On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
> > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
> > †moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
> > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
> > explained to you what was happening with the deletions
> > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
> > told people to save comments because the memory hole
> > wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
> > I know everything that was ever posted.
> >
> > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
> > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
> > reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
> > were acting like a baby.
> >
> > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
> > your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
> > can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
> > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>> > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>> > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
>> > > their email addresses.
>> > > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
>> > > of the event to which I
>> > > could link. †You'll see that I registered there just
>> > > before posting --- I've
>> > > never been one to hang around with those who agree
>> > > with me, and it's not my
>> > > choir †:)
>> > >
>> > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>> > > already anticipated that
>> > > objection here
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
>> > >
>> > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>> > > deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
>> > > moved to the memory hole,
>> > > contrary to TT policy.
>> > >
>> > > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
>> > > you are unable to judge
>> > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>> > > deleted. †You only have a
>> > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
>> > > †Do you believe
>> > > Bradford's behavior is ethical? †And does his
>> > > disregard for the deletion
>> > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>> > >
>> > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
>> > > than non-ID members. †I
>> > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
>> > > enough, I'll inevitably
>> > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>> > > posts which "refute" mine.
>> > >
>> > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>> > > your view, refute any of my
>> > > arguments. †I regret that you have been left with
>> > > this impression. †However
>> > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>> > > otherwise your claims are
>> > > empty.
>> > >
>> > > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
>> > > responses. †In the "eyes
>> > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
>> > > mistake in reasoning
>> > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
>> > > eight times asking.
>> > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
>> > > his arguments while
>> > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
>> > > counterpoints. †I was
>> > > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
>> > > off my responses.
>> > >
>> > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
>> > > brought up by someone
>> > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
>> > > about that. †Bradford
>> > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
>> > > in the confusion of
>> > > irrelevant arguments. †In fact I attempted to
>> > > explain this in that thread.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
>> > > had
>>> > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>>> > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>> > > continued
>>> > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>>> > > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>>> > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>>> > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
>> > > we
>>> > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
>> > > a 4
>>> > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
>> > > choir,
>>> > > > sorry for not being impressed.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hello,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
>> > > few
>>>> > > > > Telic Thoughts
>>>> > > > > members who list their email address. †It's been
>>>> > > > > fun.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>>> > > > > detailed my recent
>>>> > > > > banning from TT here:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
>> > > TT
>>>> > > > > thread in question:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>>> > > > > Frostman
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a better pen pal.
> > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> > http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:23:52 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Wow. These are simple points:


- There was NO jettison of any policy, the website
recently moved servers, which broke the Memory Hole
function, it didn't work for anyone. I instructed
everyone to delete offending comments and save them
for manual insertion of the memory hole.

- This completely refutes any assertion that your
posts were deleted due to unethical behavior or to
circumvent TT policy.

- You were banned because despite constant and patient
requests for you to stop, you continued like a spoiled
brat.

You say you don't understand my offer but then you ask
completely irrelevant questions. Note, I will make a
note of this publically if you once again ignore my
offer.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions? †This doesn't
> > even make sense. †When did
> > I do that? †And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. †Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith. †There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer. †Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy? †Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not? †I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > > †moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link. †You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir †:)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted. †You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > > †Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical? †And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members. †I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments. †I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression. †However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses. †In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints. †I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that. †Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments. †In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better sports nut! †Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. †http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:46:38 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I can understand how one would misunderstand
the first point, which is one of the reasons I'm
giving you this opportunity to come back (with
stipulations), it's not like you understand how
internal functions work, and we should have announced
this when it actually broke. So nix my last statement.






--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions? †This doesn't
> > even make sense. †When did
> > I do that? †And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. †Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith. †There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer. †Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy? †Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not? †I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > > †moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link. †You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir †:)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted. †You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > > †Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical? †And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members. †I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments. †I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression. †However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses. †In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints. †I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that. †Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments. †In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. †http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:16   

Part 2:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:14:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

OK we may be getting closer to understanding each other.  Again I pledge
that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume you are doing likewise.

This was the series of observations which upon which I drew my conclusions:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.
- You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's working now.
- I see two posts by you which say "test" and "test2" in them memory hole.
This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as your tests presumably
confirmed it to for you.
- Afterward, several of my posts which defend my position on the Davies
quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear,
without going to the memory hole.
- I ask if the memory hole is really working.
- Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine.
:grin:"
- I notice the last post in which I so asked is moved to the memory hole.
This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the memory hole is
working.
- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position on
the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.
- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.
- I inquire again about these deletions.  Those inquiries are deleted.
- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is deleted.
- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)
questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without being
moved to the memory hole.
- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, with
all of my responses to those claims deleted.

In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me, it appeared that you
were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to delete posts permanently,
without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you weren't really asking that,
I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase "don't understand" like
ten times.

Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the decision I am asked to
respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am just dumbfounded.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:28:45 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I thought you were playing dumb, which is
why my last few e-mails were rather aggressive, for
which I apologize deeply. I completely see how you are
confused and feel like you have been done an
injustice, for which again I apologize. But I can
assure you that everything that happened was a huge
misunderstanding. Let me see if I can make the series
of events clear to you, by quoting each of your
points:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.

This is when the Memory Hole was not working, he
deleted because he was following my instructions, I
told all the bloggers to save a copy of any offending
comments and send them to me. In hindsight, this was
bad advice because of the impression it gave.

- Afterward, several of my posts which defend position
on the Davies quote and defend my position on
"non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear, without going
to the memory hole.

This was all me. I deleted them, as I said in the
thread, because I was reacting to what I saw as an
attempted circumvention of Bradford's initial decision
(I called it whining), that is, Bradford only deleted
1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the
rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile
reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I
apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the
deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were
my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile
attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his
decision. Really you just felt that your posts were
unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at
that as well.

Let me give you an idea of my thinking here. Our
policy is to move a comment to the memory hole, but
you can understand the frustration if someone takes
that comment, and reposts it *again* in the thread.
This is what I perceived as happening. However you had
no way of knowing that the memory hole was not
working, and my instructions to the crew, so I see now
that this was all just a really bad misunderstanding,
and it's completely my fault. I usually delete posts
as a deterent, if you attempt to circumvent the
decision of the blogger, you will see that you have
wasted your time, kind of deal, I hope you can
understand.

So like I said, you were not banned as a result of a
vote, which is usually how TT decides to ban people.
So I have no problem with you comming back. You also
understand though, that if a blogger asks you to stop
commenting in their thread, you should respect that.
If you see a comment of yours moved to the memory
hole, don't try to re-summarize it in an attempt to
restore it to the thread. I'm sure you aware of all
this I'm just letting you know so that this whole
schmiel doesn't happen again.

I will be more careful in the future with that delete
button. So, if we understand eachother now, I'll be
more than happy to lift your ban.





--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK we may be getting closer to understanding each
> > other.  Again I pledge
> > that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume
> > you are doing likewise.
> >
> > This was the series of observations which upon which
> > I drew my conclusions:
> >
> > - A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
> > - Bradford says he deleted it.
> > - You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's
> > working now.
> > - I see two posts by you which say "test" and
> > "test2" in them memory hole.
> > This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as
> > your tests presumably
> > confirmed it to for you.
> > - Afterward, several of my posts which defend my
> > position on the Davies
> > quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs
> > "anti-theism" disappear,
> > without going to the memory hole.
> > - I ask if the memory hole is really working.
> > - Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The
> > memory hole works fine.
> > :grin:"
> > - I notice the last post in which I so asked is
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> > the memory hole is
> > working.
> > - Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I
> > defend my position on
> > the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational,
> > on-topic post.
> > - That post is deleted, without going to the memory
> > hole.
> > - I inquire again about these deletions.  Those
> > inquiries are deleted.
> > - Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is
> > deleted.
> > - Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my
> > position, or (2)
> > questions these deletions in light of the policy, is
> > deleted without being
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > - The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh
> > claims against me, with
> > all of my responses to those claims deleted.
> >
> > In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me,
> > it appeared that you
> > were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to
> > delete posts permanently,
> > without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you
> > weren't really asking that,
> > I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase
> > "don't understand" like
> > ten times.
> >
> > Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the
> > decision I am asked to
> > respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am
> > just dumbfounded.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:00:34 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know how easily
misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.  Normally at this point I
would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would both have a laugh at
the confluence of coincidences which brought about the misunderstanding.

But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't been made on TT
explaining the situation.  You continue to stand mute in the face of all the
derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took place in the aftermath of
our ban.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:00:28 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I feel that this is justified given your false charge
of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
apologized for.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
> > how easily
> > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
> > Normally at this point I
> > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
> > both have a laugh at
> > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
> > the misunderstanding.
> >
> > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT
> > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
> > mute in the face of all the
> > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
> > place in the aftermath of
> > our ban.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:23:24 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so quickly.  When I
pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I would assume you were
also, it appeared that we at last discovered the misunderstanding at root in
these events.

Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly viewed as a pariah again, for
some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in good faith, you
assume.  There is little I can do once that assumption is made, however I
will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.

On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was
clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would
agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing
"most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true..."

The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the final three-sentence
paragraph of his editorial?

In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides both are wrong, and says
something entirely antithetical in the third sentence.  He forgets to delete
the first two sentences on his word processor, a mistake which goes
unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New York Times.

In the second scenario, he writes the three disparate sentences
intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final paragraph as a whole is
meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is destroyed when just the
final sentence is taken without the preceding two.

Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is certainly no theist.
What are the chances that he meant his final paragraph to be used in the way
Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.

Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I still can't fathom how),
that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined an entirely reasonable
and rational position, and I expect all or most non-ID folks would agree
with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational discussion were people are
free to disagree, or not?

Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You have done several things
which were outright wrong, and you have apologized for them (thank you).
Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My posts were not saved, and
they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts outlined my position on
the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting those posts permanently,
you denied me the chance to defend myself against Bradford's accusations.

And now I am required to defend my position again.  Actually you did not ask
for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my position!  Moreover, my
renouncement is being held as a precondition for *you* to admit the mistakes
*you* made!

I am astonished.

On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I feel that this is justified given your false charge
> > of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
> > apologized for.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
>> > > how easily
>> > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>> > > Normally at this point I
>> > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
>> > > both have a laugh at
>> > > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
>> > > the misunderstanding.
>> > >
>> > > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT
>> > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>> > > mute in the face of all the
>> > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>> > > place in the aftermath of
>> > > our ban.
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:07:53 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
at all.

But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
him of taking the quote out of context was
inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.

Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
Bradford before returning.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hi Frostman,

I am going to be very busy for the rest of the day,
but I'll have a chance to post your apology later this
evening, you can just send it to me whenever your
ready, no need to do it in Word, just as an e-mail
message is fine.

In the blog, I'll also include my apology to you, and
explaining the situation and then everything should be
ok.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear with me again.  Again, I
am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I pledge once more that I am
acting in good faith.

I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been explained thoroughly
enough.  I also hope that, even though you may disagree with it, you see it
is as a position someone could take (albeit erroneously).  I know that
others agree with me.

It is my understanding that participants at Telic Thoughts are allowed to
disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago if this was not the
case, as would a slew of others.

You and Bradford disagree with my position on the Davies quote.  That is
fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get somewhere, but that is
not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that we should be allowed to
disagree.

Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my position.  It appears that I
am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement offends Bradford.  Surely
you can't mean that, so what do you mean?

It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of context!"  That certainly
would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.  Look at my post --- it
merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."

Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are quoted out of context on
Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny fraction of bloggers
actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no accusations of malicious
intent.

As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling that I am being asked
to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my renouncement in order
to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging those mistakes that you
have heretofore only privately acknowledged.

I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but I am still fumbling
around trying to understand your position.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
> > you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
> > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
> > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
> > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
> > at all.
> >
> > But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
> > him of taking the quote out of context was
> > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
> >
> > Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
> > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
> > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
> > Bradford before returning.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
>> > > quickly.  When I
>> > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
>> > > would assume you were
>> > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>> > > misunderstanding at root in
>> > > these events.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>> > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>> > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
>> > > good faith, you
>> > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>> > > assumption is made, however I
>> > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>> > >
>> > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
>> > > the Davies quote was
>> > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>> > > "anti-theists" alike would
>> > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>> > > clipped. There is nothing
>> > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
>> > > true..."
>> > >
>> > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>> > > final three-sentence
>> > > paragraph of his editorial?
>> > >
>> > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
>> > > both are wrong, and says
>> > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>> > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>> > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>> > > mistake which goes
>> > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
>> > > York Times.
>> > >
>> > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>> > > disparate sentences
>> > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
>> > > paragraph as a whole is
>> > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
>> > > destroyed when just the
>> > > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
>> > >
>> > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
>> > > certainly no theist.
>> > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>> > > paragraph to be used in the way
>> > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>> > >
>> > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
>> > > still can't fathom how),
>> > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
>> > > an entirely reasonable
>> > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>> > > non-ID folks would agree
>> > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>> > > discussion were people are
>> > > free to disagree, or not?
>> > >
>> > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
>> > > have done several things
>> > > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
>> > > for them (thank you).
>> > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>> > > posts were not saved, and
>> > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
>> > > outlined my position on
>> > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>> > > those posts permanently,
>> > > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
>> > > Bradford's accusations.
>> > >
>> > > And now I am required to defend my position again.
>> > > Actually you did not ask
>> > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>> > > position!  Moreover, my
>> > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>> > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>> > > *you* made!
>> > >
>> > > I am astonished.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > > charge
>>> > > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
>> > > yet
>>> > > > apologized for.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
>> > > know
>>>> > > > > how easily
>>>> > > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>>> > > > > Normally at this point I
>>>> > > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
>> > > would
>>>> > > > > both have a laugh at
>>>> > > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
>> > > about
>>>> > > > > the misunderstanding.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
>> > > hasn't
>>>> > > > > been made on TT
>>>> > > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>>> > > > > mute in the face of all the
>>>> > > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>>> > > > > place in the aftermath of
>>>> > > > > our ban.
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:17   

Part 3:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:37:23 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
to do about the broken memory hole).

For future reference, perhaps understanding that
telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
with various phrases from the Talmud.

Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
one sentence.

So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
least for using sloppy language and then accusing
Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
language). It would go a long way in putting this
situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
a civil manner.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
> > with me again.  Again, I
> > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
> > pledge once more that I am
> > acting in good faith.
> >
> > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
> > explained thoroughly
> > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
> > disagree with it, you see it
> > is as a position someone could take (albeit
> > erroneously).  I know that
> > others agree with me.
> >
> > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
> > Thoughts are allowed to
> > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
> > if this was not the
> > case, as would a slew of others.
> >
> > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
> > Davies quote.  That is
> > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
> > somewhere, but that is
> > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
> > we should be allowed to
> > disagree.
> >
> > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
> > position.  It appears that I
> > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
> > offends Bradford.  Surely
> > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
> >
> > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
> > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
> > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
> > context!"  That certainly
> > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
> > Look at my post --- it
> > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
> >
> > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
> > quoted out of context on
> > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
> > fraction of bloggers
> > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
> > accusations of malicious
> > intent.
> >
> > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
> > that I am being asked
> > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
> > renouncement in order
> > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
> > those mistakes that you
> > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
> >
> > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
> > I am still fumbling
> > around trying to understand your position.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
> > debate,
>> > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
> > of
>> > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
> > the
>> > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>> > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
> > if
>> > > at all.
>> > >
>> > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
> > Accusing
>> > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>> > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>> > >
>> > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
> > along, I
>> > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
> > yet
>> > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
> > to
>> > > Bradford before returning.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
> > again so
>>> > > > quickly.  When I
>>> > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
> > that I
>>> > > > would assume you were
>>> > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>> > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>> > > > these events.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>> > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>> > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
> > acting in
>>> > > > good faith, you
>>> > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>> > > > assumption is made, however I
>>> > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
> > that
>>> > > > the Davies quote was
>>> > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>> > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>> > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>> > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>> > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
> > contrary is
>>> > > > true..."
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>> > > > final three-sentence
>>> > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
> > decides
>>> > > > both are wrong, and says
>>> > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>> > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>> > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>> > > > mistake which goes
>>> > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
> > New
>>> > > > York Times.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>> > > > disparate sentences
>>> > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
> > final
>>> > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>> > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
> > is
>>> > > > destroyed when just the
>>> > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
> > two.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
> > is
>>> > > > certainly no theist.
>>> > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>> > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>> > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
> > sorry I
>>> > > > still can't fathom how),
>>> > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
> > outlined
>>> > > > an entirely reasonable
>>> > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>> > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>> > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>> > > > discussion were people are
>>> > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
> > You
>>> > > > have done several things
>>> > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
> > apologized
>>> > > > for them (thank you).
>>> > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>> > > > posts were not saved, and
>>> > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
> > posts
>>> > > > outlined my position on
>>> > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>> > > > those posts permanently,
>>> > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
> > against
>>> > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And now I am required to defend my position
> > again.
>>> > > > Actually you did not ask
>>> > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>> > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>> > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>> > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>> > > > *you* made!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I am astonished.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> >
=== message truncated ===



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:55:17 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies quote again.  In short, I
believe it was a mistake to use only the final sentence of that
three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part of any quoting is to be
faithful to the author's intention.  As you said, Bradford was not talking
about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by definition an out of context
quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You have reinforced my
position on this.

Calling attention to an out of context quote is not inherently offensive or
derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more often than you believe
it does --- and the reason for it happening is well-known.  It does not
involve malicious intent.

All you have to do is put yourself in the position of the blogger.  Imagine
you are reading an article, and a particular sentence or passage gives you a
jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is possible that you may not
take the surrounding text sufficiently into account --- you just love that
passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.  And in your focusing, you
may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing conniving about it.
It's just part of the package of human emotions, which is our greatest
asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead us into logical troubles.

This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally be taken out of
context, but you see the gist of it.

And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed once again!

This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a digression from the original
issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is the number one issue.
My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of which I
have no concern at the moment.

When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you wrote a very contrite email
to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am grateful that we both stuck
it out long enough to figure out what really happened.  That in itself may
be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a little less tolerant, one
party may have stomped away, and the problem would be left unsolved.

The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It took genuine honor to
write that email, but there was no public display of that honor.  I waited
for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear on the TT thread, but
none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a false impression of my
actions there.  And they still do.  With all the dignity you showed in your
email, you could not muster the strength to clear my name.

And then came the email which bowled me over: that you would disclose the
misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon certain conditions which
I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return you will admit your
mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the unintentional consequence of
wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that, and we both know what it
is.

It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is to tell a lie.  You want
me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a position which I firmly
believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended this position.
(Remember, my position is that the quote is simply out of context, not that
Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow that, I would be lying.

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
> > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
> > out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
> > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
> > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
> > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
> > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
> > should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
> > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
> > to do about the broken memory hole).
> >
> > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
> > telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
> > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
> > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
> > selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
> > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
> > with various phrases from the Talmud.
> >
> > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
> > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
> > reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
> > one sentence.
> >
> > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
> > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
> > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
> > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
> > language). It would go a long way in putting this
> > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
> > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
> > rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
> > a civil manner.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
>> > > with me again.  Again, I
>> > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
>> > > pledge once more that I am
>> > > acting in good faith.
>> > >
>> > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
>> > > explained thoroughly
>> > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>> > > disagree with it, you see it
>> > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>> > > erroneously).  I know that
>> > > others agree with me.
>> > >
>> > > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
>> > > Thoughts are allowed to
>> > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
>> > > if this was not the
>> > > case, as would a slew of others.
>> > >
>> > > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
>> > > Davies quote.  That is
>> > > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
>> > > somewhere, but that is
>> > > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
>> > > we should be allowed to
>> > > disagree.
>> > >
>> > > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
>> > > position.  It appears that I
>> > > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
>> > > offends Bradford.  Surely
>> > > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
>> > >
>> > > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
>> > > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
>> > > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
>> > > context!"  That certainly
>> > > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
>> > > Look at my post --- it
>> > > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
>> > >
>> > > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
>> > > quoted out of context on
>> > > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
>> > > fraction of bloggers
>> > > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
>> > > accusations of malicious
>> > > intent.
>> > >
>> > > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
>> > > that I am being asked
>> > > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
>> > > renouncement in order
>> > > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
>> > > those mistakes that you
>> > > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
>> > >
>> > > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
>> > > I am still fumbling
>> > > around trying to understand your position.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
>> > > debate,
>>> > > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
>> > > of
>>> > > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
>> > > the
>>> > > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>>> > > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
>> > > if
>>> > > > at all.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
>> > > Accusing
>>> > > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>>> > > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
>> > > along, I
>>> > > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
>> > > yet
>>> > > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
>> > > to
>>> > > > Bradford before returning.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
>> > > again so
>>>> > > > > quickly.  When I
>>>> > > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
>> > > that I
>>>> > > > > would assume you were
>>>> > > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>>> > > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>>> > > > > these events.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>>> > > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>>> > > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
>> > > acting in
>>>> > > > > good faith, you
>>>> > > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>>> > > > > assumption is made, however I
>>>> > > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
>> > > that
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote was
>>>> > > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>>> > > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>>> > > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>>> > > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>>> > > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
>> > > contrary is
>>>> > > > > true..."
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>>> > > > > final three-sentence
>>>> > > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
>> > > decides
>>>> > > > > both are wrong, and says
>>>> > > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>>> > > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>>> > > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>>> > > > > mistake which goes
>>>> > > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
>> > > New
>>>> > > > > York Times.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>>> > > > > disparate sentences
>>>> > > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
>> > > final
>>>> > > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>>> > > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > destroyed when just the
>>>> > > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
>> > > two.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > certainly no theist.
>>>> > > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>>> > > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>>> > > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
>> > > sorry I
>>>> > > > > still can't fathom how),
>>>> > > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
>> > > outlined
>>>> > > > > an entirely reasonable
>>>> > > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>>> > > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>>> > > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>>> > > > > discussion were people are
>>>> > > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
>> > > You
>>>> > > > > have done several things
>>>> > > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
>> > > apologized
>>>> > > > > for them (thank you).
>>>> > > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>>> > > > > posts were not saved, and
>>>> > > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
>> > > posts
>>>> > > > > outlined my position on
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>>> > > > > those posts permanently,
>>>> > > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
>> > > against
>>>> > > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > And now I am required to defend my position
>> > > again.
>>>> > > > > Actually you did not ask
>>>> > > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>>> > > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>>> > > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>>> > > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>>> > > > > *you* made!
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I am astonished.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>>> > > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:16:32 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hello again Frostman,

Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
That the last sentence in question makes atheists
uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
in that none of the critics that have been confronted
with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
context).

You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
either way, which means you are willing to do it again
even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.

So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.

Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.

Sincerely,
Guts


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
> > quote again.  In short, I
> > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
> > sentence of that
> > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
> > of any quoting is to be
> > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
> > Bradford was not talking
> > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
> > definition an out of context
> > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
> > have reinforced my
> > position on this.
> >
> > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
> > inherently offensive or
> > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
> > often than you believe
> > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
> > well-known.  It does not
> > involve malicious intent.
> >
> > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
> > of the blogger.  Imagine
> > you are reading an article, and a particular
> > sentence or passage gives you a
> > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
> > possible that you may not
> > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
> > --- you just love that
> > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
> > And in your focusing, you
> > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
> > conniving about it.
> > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
> > which is our greatest
> > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
> > us into logical troubles.
> >
> > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
> > be taken out of
> > context, but you see the gist of it.
> >
> > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
> > once again!
> >
> > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
> > digression from the original
> > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
> > that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
> > the number one issue.
> > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
> > separate issue, of which I
> > have no concern at the moment.
> >
> > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
> > wrote a very contrite email
> > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
> > grateful that we both stuck
> > it out long enough to figure out what really
> > happened.  That in itself may
> > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
> > little less tolerant, one
> > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
> > be left unsolved.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
> > took genuine honor to
> > write that email, but there was no public display of
> > that honor.  I waited
> > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
> > on the TT thread, but
> > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
> > false impression of my
> > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
> > dignity you showed in your
> > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
> > name.
> >
> > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
> > you would disclose the
> > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
> > certain conditions which
> > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
> > you will admit your
> > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
> > unintentional consequence of
> > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
> > and we both know what it
> > is.
> >
> > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
> > to tell a lie.  You want
> > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
> > position which I firmly
> > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
> > this position.
> > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
> > out of context, not that
> > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
> > that, I would be lying.
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>> > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
> > quote
>> > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
> > be
>> > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
> > quotes
>> > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
> >  If
>> > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
> > can
>> > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>> > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
> > (as I
>> > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
> > what
>> > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>> > >
>> > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>> > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
> > of
>> > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
> > not
>> > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>> > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
> > alter
>> > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
> > it
>> > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>> > >
>> > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
> > to
>> > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>> > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
> > the
>> > > one sentence.
>> > >
>> > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>> > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>> > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
> > because he
>> > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>> > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>> > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>> > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>> > > rationally disagree but still engage with
> > eachother in
>> > > a civil manner.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
> > bear
>>> > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>> > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
> > I
>>> > > > pledge once more that I am
>>> > > > acting in good faith.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
> > been
>>> > > > explained thoroughly
>>> > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>> > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>> > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>> > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>> > > > others agree with me.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It is my understanding that participants at
> > Telic
>>> > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>> > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
> > ago
>>> > > > if this was not the
>>> > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>> > > >
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:17   

Part 4:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:03:25 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

You have misunderstood.  In my last email I made clear, or I thought I made
clear, that I am unconcerned about the state of my banning.  That's not the
issue here.

The issue is that you have not done the right thing by publicly explaining
the mistakes you made to those at TT, and the unfortunate consequences of
those mistakes.  Like I said in my last email, "This is the number one
issue.  My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of
which I have no concern at the moment."

Previously you said to me, among other things, "...I deleted the rest
because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's
initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of
the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because
of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to
circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly
deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well."

Why would you continue to hold that information to yourself?  When you
realized the misunderstanding, why didn't you rush to correct it?  Why have
you still not corrected it?  You may not like me, but obviously that is no
excuse.  We both know what is right and what is wrong here.  Why have you
not done the right thing?

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:16 AM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hello again Frostman,
> >
> > Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
> > That the last sentence in question makes atheists
> > uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
> > in that none of the critics that have been confronted
> > with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
> > context).
> >
> > You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
> > someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
> > either way, which means you are willing to do it again
> > even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.
> >
> > So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
> > Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.
> >
> > Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
> > because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
> > hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
> > Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
> > this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Guts
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
>> > > quote again.  In short, I
>> > > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
>> > > sentence of that
>> > > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
>> > > of any quoting is to be
>> > > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
>> > > Bradford was not talking
>> > > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
>> > > definition an out of context
>> > > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
>> > > have reinforced my
>> > > position on this.
>> > >
>> > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
>> > > inherently offensive or
>> > > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
>> > > often than you believe
>> > > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
>> > > well-known.  It does not
>> > > involve malicious intent.
>> > >
>> > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
>> > > of the blogger.  Imagine
>> > > you are reading an article, and a particular
>> > > sentence or passage gives you a
>> > > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
>> > > possible that you may not
>> > > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
>> > > --- you just love that
>> > > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
>> > > And in your focusing, you
>> > > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
>> > > conniving about it.
>> > > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
>> > > which is our greatest
>> > > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
>> > > us into logical troubles.
>> > >
>> > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
>> > > be taken out of
>> > > context, but you see the gist of it.
>> > >
>> > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
>> > > once again!
>> > >
>> > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
>> > > digression from the original
>> > > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
>> > > that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
>> > > the number one issue.
>> > > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
>> > > separate issue, of which I
>> > > have no concern at the moment.
>> > >
>> > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
>> > > wrote a very contrite email
>> > > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
>> > > grateful that we both stuck
>> > > it out long enough to figure out what really
>> > > happened.  That in itself may
>> > > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
>> > > little less tolerant, one
>> > > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
>> > > be left unsolved.
>> > >
>> > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
>> > > took genuine honor to
>> > > write that email, but there was no public display of
>> > > that honor.  I waited
>> > > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
>> > > on the TT thread, but
>> > > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
>> > > false impression of my
>> > > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
>> > > dignity you showed in your
>> > > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
>> > > name.
>> > >
>> > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
>> > > you would disclose the
>> > > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
>> > > certain conditions which
>> > > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
>> > > you will admit your
>> > > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
>> > > unintentional consequence of
>> > > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
>> > > and we both know what it
>> > > is.
>> > >
>> > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
>> > > to tell a lie.  You want
>> > > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
>> > > position which I firmly
>> > > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
>> > > this position.
>> > > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
>> > > out of context, not that
>> > > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
>> > > that, I would be lying.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
>> > > What is stopping you from
>> > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
>> > > it contingent upon *my*
>> > > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
>> > > Davies quote is totally
>> > > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
>> > > right thing.
>> > >
>> > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
>> > > situation.  Why am I
>> > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
>> > > right thing?  Why don't
>> > > you just do it?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>>> > > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
>> > > quote
>>> > > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
>> > > be
>>> > > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
>> > > quotes
>>> > > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
>> > >  If
>>> > > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
>> > > can
>>> > > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>>> > > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
>> > > (as I
>>> > > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
>> > > what
>>> > > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>>> > > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
>> > > of
>>> > > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
>> > > not
>>> > > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>>> > > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
>> > > alter
>>> > > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
>> > > it
>>> > > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
>> > > to
>>> > > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>>> > > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>>> > > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
>> > > the
>>> > > > one sentence.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>>> > > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>>> > > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
>> > > because he
>>> > > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>>> > > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>>> > > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>>> > > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>>> > > > rationally disagree but still engage with
>> > > eachother in
>>> > > > a civil manner.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
>> > > bear
>>>> > > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>>> > > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
>> > > I
>>>> > > > > pledge once more that I am
>>>> > > > > acting in good faith.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
>> > > been
>>>> > > > > explained thoroughly
>>>> > > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>>> > > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>>> > > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>>> > > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>>> > > > > others agree with me.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > It is my understanding that participants at
>> > > Telic
>>>> > > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>>> > > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
>> > > ago
>>>> > > > > if this was not the
>>>> > > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>>> > > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:28 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

Though you have not answered yet (been very little time), I feel obligated
to address what I suspect your response will be.

You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, and then I will do the
right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused this misunderstanding at
TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from
doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task alone: to candidly say
publicly what you have candidly said to me privately.

I regret to simply restate what I said in my penultimate (I love that word!)
email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored it:

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Sincerely,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:57:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
although there were many insults flung at TT, they
moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
you won't protest that).

Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
occured. However, the fact remains that your
accusation of out of context quotation was
inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
it.



--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:01:41 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually one last thing,

The offer still stands as to lifting your ban. You can
send me an apology to Bradford, which I will post as a
Blog Entry, along with my apology to you. I think two
paragraphs is enough.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:23 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

This is an ethical question for you to ponder on your own time.  You have
wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not set the record straight
in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.  You know what is right,
and you know that you have not done what is right.  It's really that simple.

You have already agreed with me that the Davies quote was taken out of
context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not talking about Davies'
intended meaning."  The most important part of any quoting is to be faithful
to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that simple.

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
> > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
> > publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
> > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
> > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
> > you won't protest that).
> >
> > Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
> > what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
> > occured. However, the fact remains that your
> > accusation of out of context quotation was
> > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
> > it.
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:55:46 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
make where I do it.

I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
context, I said your position that it was taken out of
context was irrational.

I've wasted enough time with you.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
> > your own time.  You have
> > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
> > set the record straight
> > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
> > You know what is right,
> > and you know that you have not done what is right.
> > It's really that simple.
> >
> > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
> > quote was taken out of
> > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies'
> > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
> > quoting is to be faithful
> > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
> > simple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
> > First,
>> > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>> > > publically, check out your thread on AE
> > (ironically,
>> > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>> > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
> > bet
>> > > you won't protest that).
>> > >
>> > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
> > explained
>> > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
> > had
>> > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>> > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>> > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
> > Thats
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:07 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

It makes a difference because the persons you inform of the wrongdoing
should be the same persons who witnessed the wrongdoing.  TT readers should
be informed, not AE readers.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
> > make where I do it.
> >
> > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
> > context, I said your position that it was taken out of
> > context was irrational.
> >
> > I've wasted enough time with you.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>> > > your own time.  You have
>> > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
>> > > set the record straight
>> > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
>> > > You know what is right,
>> > > and you know that you have not done what is right.
>> > > It's really that simple.
>> > >
>> > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>> > > quote was taken out of
>> > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies'
>> > > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
>> > > quoting is to be faithful
>> > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
>> > > simple.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>> > > First,
>>> > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>> > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>> > > (ironically,
>>> > > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>>> > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
>> > > bet
>>> > > > you won't protest that).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>> > > explained
>>> > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
>> > > had
>>> > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>> > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>> > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>> > > Thats
>>> > > > it.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:36:24 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
what truly occured. All is well.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It makes a difference because the persons you inform
> > of the wrongdoing
> > should be the same persons who witnessed the
> > wrongdoing.  TT readers should
> > be informed, not AE readers.
> >
> > Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to
> > the ethical obligation
> > in front of you.  You require nothing from me in
> > order to fulfill that
> > obligation.
> >
> > You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you
> > will not do it.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does
> > it
>> > > make where I do it.
>> > >
>> > > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
>> > > context, I said your position that it was taken
> > out of
>> > > context was irrational.
>> > >
>> > > I've wasted enough time with you.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>>> > > > your own time.  You have
>>> > > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will
> > not
>>> > > > set the record straight
>>> > > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing
> > occurred.
>>> > > > You know what is right,
>>> > > > and you know that you have not done what is
> > right.
>>> > > > It's really that simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>>> > > > quote was taken out of
>>> > > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was
> > not
>>> > > > talking about Davies'
>>> > > > intended meaning."  The most important part of
> > any
>>> > > > quoting is to be faithful
>>> > > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really
> > that
>>> > > > simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>>> > > > First,
>>>> > > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>>> > > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>>> > > > (ironically,
>>>> > > > > although there were many insults flung at TT,
> > they
>>>> > > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but
> > I
>>> > > > bet
>>>> > > > > you won't protest that).
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>>> > > > explained
>>>> > > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating
> > what
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>>> > > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>>> > > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>>> > > > Thats
>>>> > > > > it.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:15:53 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers
may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell
them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
> > in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
> > reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
> > what truly occured. All is well.
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:49:34 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, nucacids@wowway.com

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=86519

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:52:15 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my
banishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90


My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
me.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular
quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context.  This
view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a
free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not support
such a free exchange.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:21:31 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hello Mike,

Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts
can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.

With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.

Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I am
prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you may
read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This will
provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.

That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
significant.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding
> > my banishment from TT.
> >
> > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
> > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
> > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
> > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
> > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
> > however.
> >
> > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90
> >
> >
> > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
> > me.
> >
> > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
> > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
> > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
> > my banning.
> >
> > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of
> > a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
> > support such a free exchange.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 04:39:51 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Still no comment?  Curious  :)

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466

On Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic
> > Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.
> >
> > With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
> > open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
> > previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.
> >
> > Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I
> > am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you
> > may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This
> > will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.
> >
> > That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
> > significant.
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hi Mike,
>> > >
>> > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions
>> > > surrounding my banishment from TT.
>> > >
>> > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
>> > > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
>> > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
>> > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
>> > > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
>> > > however.
>> > >
>> > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has
>> > > told me.
>> > >
>> > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
>> > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
>> > > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
>> > > my banning.
>> > >
>> > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit
>> > > of a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
>> > > support such a free exchange.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:16:42 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Perhaps it will be easier if I simply ask you a direct question:

Guts offered to lift my ban if, in exchange, I would renounce my position
that a certain quote which appeared on TT was taken out of context.

Do you believe Guts' behavior here is ethical?

And do you want Telic Thoughts to be the sort of place where particular
rational positions are not allowed to be expressed?

As I have mentioned, I am prepared to give you this email account so that
you may view the correspondence with Guts yourself.

You have a clear ethical problem in front of you.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:57:39 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com

Checkmate.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466

Regards,
Frostman

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,16:12   

I think I've been in online discussions with Nelson Alonso since about 1997, and met him in person in 2002 at the AMNH IDC debate event. I'm not surprised.

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

    
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,17:35   

Very interesting. Guts blogged †on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,18:10   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,19:38   

Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged †on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "barred".

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,20:04   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,17:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged †on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

Why am I not surprised? †(That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions.)

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,00:58   

Quote (Frostman @ July 05 2008,14:42)
It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.

Buddy, their penchant for historical revisionism should have been obvious from reading virtually anything either of them has written.

In addition to both of them being dishonest and hypocritical, Bradford is a first-class moron.

Relax. Just let the tard wash over you...

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,01:47   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,19:38)
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged †on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "barred".

You weren't banned, you were barred from a specific thread. You can post freely in any thread you wish. You just can't continue to derail mine

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,01:48   

Art writes:
Quote

That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions


I  don't get it. How is posting a redundant link a "probing question"?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:02   

Frostman writes:
Quote

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.


This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:

Quote

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts


A clear attempt at disguising himself.

Quote

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.


In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.

This willingness to be deceptive speaks volumes. It shows the one who lacks ethics is frostman, not me.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:04   

Hey Guts. Sorry if you're disoriented: we're a science blog, so there's no arbitrary censorship here. You'll get used to it. How's the ID journal coming? Oh, sorry.

   
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:10   

How would you know this is a science blog? You're obviously scientifically illiterate.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:18   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 05 2008,20:29)
Joy replied  
Quote
Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? ...

It's E. coli.  Ask Prof. Lenski to send you some.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:23   

I'll post another example of deception, this time from steve:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698

He claims that we moderated his comment, and yet here it is on the live site:

http://telicthoughts.com/aiguys-computer/#comment-193776

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:27   

It'll be fun excersize for the comming weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be, perhaps even occasionally cross post it to AE. See you guys later.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:28   

oops i meant "exercise"  and cross post it to TT. You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,03:40   

I don't look at TT having had my fill of Mike Gene years ago on the ARN BB. From the last two pages of this tread, I have not missed anything.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,04:18   

yeah but Dr. GH  you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible.

  
Zarquon



Posts: 71
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,04:27   

Creationists are even less credible.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,04:29   

Yeah you creationists are unreliable , you are all no different from creationists.What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,04:58   

Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,04:59   

"than this" stupid board

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:00   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,10:29)
Yeah you creationists are unreliable , you are all no different from creationists.What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic.

Then again, there's this pesky little thing called "evidence" that creationists, regardless of what cheap tuxedo they may favor, just seem to lack. Or disregard rather.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:03   

I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:08   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:03)
I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please

Great! It's getting published any day now I take it?
Well, you know where to find this thread when it's time to gloat after you've revolutionized the world of science.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:09   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:03)
I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please

Guts,

You sound like an angry 13 year old boy.

Then again, I've read your blog.

Guts, here's a challenge. Have a debate about an issue here, where you can't censor opposing views.

How about it?

Or does the thought of being shown to be a scientific ignoramus in a venue you don't control a frighting one?

And you'd better let the Pope know about the "evidence" for your position. They've been looking for some proof now for a while. *Any* proof.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:10   

I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years. Notice how steve stays clear away from any of my technical blogs. It's because he's scientifically illiterate.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:18   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:10)
I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years.

Where?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:20   

Right here. Come at me, I dare you.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:21   

Please state:

A) The essence of your position

B) The single best piece of physical evidence for your position

C) A prediction that can be checked experientially that will
provide support for your position that will result in a different answer from the "standard" position.

----------------------

A) The diversity of biological life we see around us did not require any "telic" or supernatural intervention to come into being and can can be explained either by known processes or unknown, but not supernatural, processes. In addition, there was no "front loading".

B) I really like the sequence of horse fossils, but pick anything from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html it's all the same.
Quote
Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

C) Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:23   

You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:26   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.

No, what's pathetic is that you think a debate can happen without the proponents setting out their position at the start.

Oddly people like you have been known to change their positions when counter-evidence comes up.

It's simply a matter of trust. I don't. Trust you. Therefore, at the start all the cards are on the table.

It's perhaps not surprising that you've gone from "Debate me anywhere, any time" to "oh, you've said something I don't like so I'm taking my ball and going home".

My conclusion? You are incapable of defending your position rationally. You sir, are a blowhard.

And it only took 3 posts to get there!

How embarrassing! Do you have an edit button to go back and clean up your mess?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:28   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.

What's wrong with making sure your position is not misrepresented? Shouldn't take long.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:28   

It seems to me that you are completely ignorant. You automatically assumed from the start that my position was wrong. But what position was that? The one you made up in your head? You don't even know my position? This thread is longer than most in this forum, it's pathetic to think you don't even know my position. What a waste of brain cells you are.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:29   

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,05:28)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.

What's wrong with making sure your position is not misrepresented? Shouldn't take long.

you guys are the masters of misrepresentation. I've written many blogs , why not come at me from that stand point, unless you're afraid.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:29   

Quote
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,


Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:30   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)
Quote
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,


Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.

No you're post is pathetic.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:32   

"your" damn this board sucks.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:33   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:30)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)
Quote
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,


Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.

No you're post is pathetic.

Are you going to do any actual debating (the points brought forth by oldman seem like a good starting point) or are you going to do the internet tough guy routine in perpetuity?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:34   

Edited the post upstream by accident, here it is
Please state:


A) The essence of your position

B) The single best piece of physical evidence for your position

C) A prediction that can be checked experientially that will
provide support for your position that will result in a different answer from the "standard" position.

----------------------

A) The diversity of biological life we see around us did not require any "telic" or supernatural intervention to come into being and can can be explained either by known processes or unknown, but not supernatural, processes. In addition, there was no "front loading".

B) I really like the sequence of horse fossils, but pick anything from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html it's all the same. †
Quote
Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

C) Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:35   

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,05:33)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:30)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)
 
Quote
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,


Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.

No you're post is pathetic.

Are you going to do any actual debating (the points brought forth by oldman seem like a good starting point) or are you going to do the internet tough guy routine in perpetuity?

I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate. And make no mistake, you are weak.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:37   

Quote

Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?


I could even make the case that elephants are complex. You still won't be anywhere close to my position.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:37   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:32)
"your" damn this board sucks.

Still, must be quiet round your other blogs for you to be bothering here then?

What, once everybody has back-slapped each other "yeah, we all agree, we are all right" there's not much left to say or do right?

We understand. For us this is entertainment. For you, well you actually think you are achieving something don't you?

As you've backed out of even stating your position clearly for the record it's obvious you are intractable in your head-in-the-sand position.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:39   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:37)
Quote

Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?


I could even make the case that elephants are complex. You still won't be anywhere close to my position.

You could, but you prefer to act like a 15 year old. Carry on.

Just cut and paste something from one of your "technical blogs" then if the idea of telling people who might not be familiar with your position (and trust me, that'll be 99.9% of people here) is so offensive.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:41   

Quote

As you've backed out of even stating your position clearly for the record it's obvious you are intractable in your head-in-the-sand position.


Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position. It's awfully strange though that the very existence of this thread doesn't bother you given your admitted ignorance. Seems more like you're brainwashed.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:42   

Quote

Just cut and paste something from one of your "technical blogs" then if the idea of telling people who might not be familiar with your position (and trust me, that'll be 99.9% of people here) is so offensive.


Or better yet, try refuing any of my technical blogs. You can't.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:42   

Quote
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.


Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:43   

refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:44   

OR would you like to have a debate about something else?

Perhaps

The explanatory filter cannot be used and is in fact useless.

?

That's my position. To nullify this position all you have to do is to give us an example of the Explanatory Filter in use, with the mathematical details given, on a selection of objects.

To make it fair, you pick one object and we'll pick an object. You do the calculations, as nobody else can.

As problems stated mathematically are usually more amenable to unambiguous results there should be little debate if the EF can be shown to work. It either does, or it does not.

Can you prove, as your position seems to be, that the EF in fact works?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:44   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
Quote
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.


Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?

No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:45   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?

You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:45   

Quote
Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position.


He's not the only one that is completely ignorant of your position. I freely admit it. What is your position? If you don't want to restate it, perhaps you have a link that says more than ... is competely ignorant and ...sucks.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:45   

The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:46   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?

Editing rights have to be earned.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:47   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:44)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
 
Quote
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.


Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?

No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.

What do you mean?

On the one hand you are saying "I don't debate people who don't know my position" and on the other you are saying "you are too intellectually challenged to debate me"

Both cannot be true.

Still, in your world, perhaps they can both be true and that's how you and people like you make your way in the world.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:47   

So I wonder what the point of this thread is then if no one knows my position. Perhaps that will become clear in the comming weeks.

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:48   

Hello Nelson Alonso aka Guts,

You are digging yourself in deeper. †After being exposed for the scumbag that you are, out of desperation you come here to throw out random accusations and nonsense in sad attempt to distract from the recent stinging proof of your scumbaggery.
Quote
Quote
In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.
In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.

That is awesome. †Quote-mining from the quote-mining advocate. †Well at least it is consistent: after your steadfast defense of Bradford's out-of-context quoting, you engage in it yourself. †Here is the full quote, fool.
Quote
In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman. †anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts. †My posts here do not mention Nelson. †Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.

The coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts. †I assumed you would notice the use of your own name and immediately realize it was Frostman. †Alas, I forgot to apply the common knowledge that you are very, very stupid.

Please continue digging yourself further into this hole of yours, Nelson. †Each comment you make here gets you deeper. †It is quite gratifying to watch.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:48   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:45)
The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.

No doubt that's why you said

 
Quote
Guts: Thats not a false positive wrt Dembskiís method, a false positive refers to using Dembskiís methodology to determine whether something is designed, and finding out it actually evolved.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/telic-thoughts.html
Changed your mind in the fact of evidence have you? I guess there's hope yet.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:48   

Quote
You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
Joseph Heller would have been proud :D

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,05:47)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:44)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
Quote
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.


Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?

No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.

What do you mean?

On the one hand you are saying "I don't debate people who don't know my position" and on the other you are saying "you are too intellectually challenged to debate me"

Both cannot be true.

Still, in your world, perhaps they can both be true and that's how you and people like you make your way in the world.

I never said "I don't debate people who don't know my position" Why are you lying? I just said it was interesting, given the existence of this thread, that people don't know my position.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:52   

Frostman,

Isn't it batshit insane, to refer to yourself in the third person. I truly think that you need psychological help, and if you e-mail me again, I can refer you to some experts that can help you.

I can post the relevant comment you left if you "blacked out" because of your "problem" and can't remember.

It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:52   

Guts:
Quote
No it doesn't, it just makes the EF fallible, and not perfect, like most sciences. If the EF detects an object as designed, and but we find out it actually evolved, then you can say that it's not reliable. But that hasn't happened yet. Pointing to the possibility that it might happen doesn't render it useless at all.


hahah

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,05:57   

Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:01   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:02   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:03   

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.

How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:03   

So, Guts, about the EF.

Currently laughable to you, but you obviously believed in it at some point (circa 2005).

What lead you to the truth of the matter?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.

Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:05   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:03)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.

How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.

I've just shown how you've changed your position on the EF. Why is it so unbelievable you might have changed your other positions in the fact of factual evidence shown why those positions were wrong?

We don't know exactly where you've got to in your struggle to discard all the debris of a damaged mind, so if you can state your current position we can hold your hand while you inch towards the reality based community.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:07   

Please, please, please, Guts,

State your position.

Thanks in advance.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:08   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.

Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.

Guts, have I said I don't know what your position is?

OK, what do you want to debate about?

Shall we try that?

How about "how the explanatory filter is a worthless construct that is only used to fool the less mathematical into believing that design detection has a foundation in reality when in fact it's just the math icing on a cake of nothing"

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:08   

How do you know I changed my position on the EF? I actually did defend it at one point, not because I agreed with it but because it was being misrepresented but that doesn't mean I espouse it, that is a completely different issue.

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:09   

Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.

I thought I've seen thick skulls before, but yours has got to be the thickest I have ever seen. †For the third time: the coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.

To witness your disintegration into a flailing ball of petulant 13-year-old comments here, right now, on this forum, is so awesome, Nelson. †Please, continue, continue.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:08)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:04)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.

Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.

Guts, have I said I don't know what your position is?

OK, what do you want to debate about?

Shall we try that?

How about "how the explanatory filter is a worthless construct that is only used to fool the less mathematical into believing that design detection has a foundation in reality when in fact it's just the math icing on a cake of nothing"

How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:10   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:08)
How do you know I changed my position on the EF? I actually did defend it at one point, not because I agreed with it but because it was being misrepresented but that doesn't mean I espouse it, that is a completely different issue.

Simple question.

Does the EF, in your option, work or not?

Can it be used to "detect design"?

If "yes" why do you think that?

If "yes" can you give us an example?

If "no" can you say why you think it works without being able to give an example?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:11   

Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,06:09)
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.

I thought I've seen thick skulls before, but yours has got to be the thickest I have ever seen. †For the third time: the coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.

To witness your disintegration into a flailing ball of petulant 13-year-old comments here, right now, on this forum, is so awesome, Nelson. †Please, continue, continue.

Frostman, you still haven't told me why you refer to yourself in the third person. Isn't that utterly insane? Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:12   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:03)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.

Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.

How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.

Earlier in this thread you stated

 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:45)
The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.


But in a thread on telic thoughts in 2005 you wrote the following.

 
Quote (Guts @ May 06 2005 on TT)

PvM:
 
Quote

These statements combined with the admission that false positives are possible make the EF useless. For example, assume that ID had presented a clear case of an EF applied to infer design, how would we know that it had not forgotten a particular hypothesis?

No it doesn't, it just makes the EF fallible, and not perfect, like most sciences. If the EF detects an object as designed, and but we find out it actually evolved, then you can say that it's not reliable. But that hasn't happened yet. Pointing to the possibility that it might happen doesn't render it useless at all.


How is that not changing your position? Now do you understand why there might be some confusion regarding your position?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:15   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.

Lets. It simply shows how †desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:15   

I don't get it, I defend against falsehood, even the EF, if you're so utterly stupid that you don't get the EF, I will call you out on it. But it doesn't mean I espouse it. So i don't get your point.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.

Lets. It simply shows how †desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.

You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:18   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.

Lets. It simply shows how †desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.

You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?

Name calling?

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:19   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:15)
I don't get it, I defend against falsehood, even the EF, if you're so utterly stupid that you don't get the EF, I will call you out on it. But it doesn't mean I espouse it. So i don't get your point.

Defend the EF by giving us an example of it being used.

I bet you can't.

And further more I bet the reason you can't won't be "There is no example to give" but "you are a moron".

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:20   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.

Lets. It simply shows how †desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.

You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?

Oh, is this you conceding the debate?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:20   

No thats me conceding that you're a retard.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:24   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:20)
No thats me conceding that you're a retard.

You don't know you won't be able to go back and edit all this right?

How you got challenged to a debate and responded like a 10 year old?

It's good to know this is the best you've got.

In fact, like FTK, you are the best advertisement for what "telic thoughts" do to your brain.

Carry on the good work Guts, we'd be a lot worse off without your type of unthinking acceptance of such concepts as the EF. It serves to illustrate to the undecided lurkers the paucity of ideas and facts supporting your side of the "debate". Not that they know what your side is as you refuse to tell them. Sound laughable does it when you write it out? Don't blame you for not telling in that case.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:24   

Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:27   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:31   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.

Who's saying that?

The point is that before a debate or even discussion can happen you need to say something substantive that said discussion can be based upon.

Simply pointing to "my position is available on XYZ blogs" means nothing.

It's not a difficult to understand point.

Make some kind of point. People will agree or disagree. Then we can have a discussion, debate, whatever.

As yet, you've said nothing here to base such a discussion on.

Again, it's not a hard concept.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:32   

Quote
No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.


No need to write a book, surely? Just try a post with an example, starting with something like "my position on (fill in with subject of choice here) is..."

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:34   

So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:35   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound. †That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.

Ah, tactic #73

Right now I'm too busy to demonstrate why you are all idiots, but *soon* I will, just you wait and see

Sure, why not do it now Guts? What's stopping you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:36   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.

Why wait?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:38   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:35)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound. †That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.

Ah, tactic #73

Right now I'm too busy to demonstrate why you are all idiots, but *soon* I will, just you wait and see

Sure, why not do it now Guts? What's stopping you?

Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here, I just keep getting the utterly stupid question "what do you think about the EF", how utterly stupid is that? I mean really. You guys don't realize how stupid you are? That seems unlikely to me.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:45   

Quote
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.
This thread was started as a commentary on the general doings at TT, as the traffic had slowed at UD, and some people find it interesting to observe what goes on at TT. So it is not about you or your position, although your moderating behaviour has been examined. But noŲne is wanting to prevent you from demonstrating your superior intellect. We will welcome your contribution, as soon as we know what it is.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:47   

Quote
Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here


So, provide a link to your best work.

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:47   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.

You're not actually provoking anything, though, except the willingness to let you carry on for as long as you like. It's not so much giving you enough rope as allowing you to pay out as much rope as you like, a la Aristophanes.

Refusing to state your position then throwing turds at people who ask, is certainly a path to enlightenment for anyone who cares to follow the thread. As a reader, I now feel very well informed about your actual position, because it's clearly demonstrated in all your postings. Am I wrong about what's being demonstrated here? It certainly looks like a classic example of a certain sort of behaviour - and not one recognisable as an attempt to debate.

If you want a debate, it's very simple. State your assumptions, state your evidence, state your logic and state your conclusion. A proper understanding of all four is necessary to make progress.

If you don't believe we're smart enough to understand this, why are you still here? Are you not smart enough to educate us?

Instead of throwing turds, why not expend that energy throwing evidence and logic? They're far harder to scrape off, when they hit.

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:48   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:48)
I never said "I don't debate people who don't know my position" Why are you lying? I just said it was interesting, given the existence of this thread, that people don't know my position.

Well, perhaps you overestimate your importance in the world.  But, then again, perhaps I am just an ignint knuckledragger.  So, wow me.  Lay out your position so I can bask in your reflected glory.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:50   

Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:52   

But the bottom line is that AE is not about rational debate it's about cultivating flamers. I've dealt with this as soon as I banned the first flamer, keiths, and since then this blog has been an undeserved target.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:53   

But hey, you guys want to play? I'm game. Lets play.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:56   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:50)
Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.

But, I thought you wanted to debate here? †Now you are retreating to the safety of TT? † †

*turns and speaks to adults*

I hate to say it, but this guy is even worse than JoeG. At least Joe tries to sound sciency and whatnot while he is insulting you. †

*turns back to guts*

HA HA THIS IS YOU



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:57   

Quote
You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.


If I do as you say, I get this which appears to just tell me your email. It lists thread titles from all contributors, but that is not very helpful. You must know the title of a thread post or two that you are proud of, surely?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,06:59   

Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:00   

Safety of TT ? I never said any such thing you're a moron

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:03   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:00)
Safety of TT ? I never said any such thing you're a moron

Your IQ must be off the scale.

I've rarely seen such a refined wit.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:04   

Thanks, but I still think you're a retard. Flattery won't get you anywhere.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:06   

Carlson using stars to simulate "emotes" that is so weird, i gotta tell ya.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:16   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,01:59)
Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit

Thanks for explaining :)

I have skimmed through the list and, frankly, there is not much substantive content from you, rather than lifting quotes from others. I will lift something from the list if you want, but generally someone such as Zachriel or Nick Matzke seem to have dealt adequately with your position. I can't believe you don't have a favourite thread where your debating skills are particulary well-demonstrated.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:17   

"not much substantive content" is just you saying you can't respond because you're stupid. Just admit it.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:19   

Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:22   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:50)
Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

People here who ask for evidence and logic are told that they're - what? Stupid? Liars? Deceivers? That's far less effective than giving them evidence and logic and then showing that they're stupid, lying or deceptive.

You may not see this as an exercise in avoiding any specificity, but it very much looks like it from here.

Given that you don't want it to look like that - which I assume, but feel free to tell me that assumption is false - why don't you have any interest in changing that perception? And if you do have that interest, why not do what everyone's asking you to do and be specific?

It could be that you're on a Zen jag, and are hitting the novices with sticks while asking paradoxical koans as an aid to enlightenment. There's a fine line between that and being a violent schizophrenic, though: Zen masters normally exhibit the wisdom of context.

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:24   

Quote

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.


More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:25   

Alan Fox, you still there? You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:27   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:19)
Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.

It seems to me that if you want to fulfill your challenge, you would be the best person to provide material, as, presumably, you know where to look. I never offered to debate you, and I claim no special knowledge, other than BS biochemistry of many years ago.

So, I claim that I can find no substantive, unrefuted defence of Intelligent design as a worthwhile scientific pursuit anywhere at Telic Thoughts in your own words.

Please demonstrate that I am wrong. (Preferably with cites.)

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:28   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:24)
Quote

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.


More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?

OK, I unequivocally withdraw that part of my post and apologise unreservedly.

Now, will you answer the rest of that post?

Thanks

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:29   

lol so I'll take that as a no. Pathetic. Can't even own up to what you consider a "creationist", really? a "creationist" made you look stupid? Wow Alan, just, wow.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:30   

Quote
In fact no one has asked me for my position
Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:31   

My position is that you're a moron.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:36   

Quote
You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
Is there one that makes some claim supporting Intelligent Design that you could link to?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:38   

From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:43   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:31)
My position is that you're a moron.

Assuming you're using one of the old medical definitions of a moron, either an adult with a developmental age between 8 and 12 or an IQ of between 51 and 70, then I think that any objective assessment of Alan's cognitive level based on his use of language, logic and social interaction purely evinced by his postings here would disagree sharply with yours.

Purely on the evidence, of course. Perhaps you can show how you reached your conclusions?

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:45   

Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:45   

Well, it does take a lot of guts to come over here and fill up a couple of pages with insults and egotism, without ever saying anything substantive at all. No brains, but a lot of guts...

Sorry I don't read your contributions to science at your many blogs; I tend to get most of my science from peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps you can give us a citation of your latest contribution to that literature.

And I'm really sorry I haven't heard of you before yesterday. If you can get over that insult to your ego, perhaps you can tell us something you believe in, besides insults.

Oh, and please tell Joy that Isaac Asimov was a biochemist, not a geneticist. Not that she would understand the difference, but because there actually IS a difference. Confusion about science seems to be a prime commodity over there on your "technical" blog...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:47   

I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:48   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:38)
From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?

I further suggest that there is no thread topic on TT written by you that (randomly or otherwise) effectively undermines evolutionary theory, or, indeed, produces any evidence that Intelligent Design is more than a philosophical concept.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:49   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.

Name one, Nelson, or link to it.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:49   

Alan Fox, come on I'm getting sleepy are you seriously this incompetent ?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:53   

Ok , thats ok, this is simply a consquence of getting yourself "in over your head" maybe you'll be a little more hesitant next time though.

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:53   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (Nelson Alonso). †It's a devastating blow to him personally. †He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond. †If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact. †He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response. †In any case, carry on, young fool! †You are the wind beneath my wings.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:54   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,08:30)
Quote
In fact no one has asked me for my position
Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?

I found it:



Sorta ass out, with pouty lips. Some side-boob for a reach-around.

OK, back to making a fool out of yourself, Guts.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,07:56   

I'm hotter than that actually.

Frostman,

For the third time, tell me what your mom thinks of you talking to yourself in the third person. I'm sure she disapproves. I mean, thats just nuts .

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:02   

So I'm wrong, Guts?

I thought you weren't attempting to avoid specificity, but you really are?

Calling someone a moron for not addressing arguments, but then not saying what the arguments are - well, that's just calling someone a moron. Is that the reason you're claiming this thread is all about insults, because that's all you're prepared to contribute?

Come on, just one thing that's not a personal insult, that people of good intent can debate.

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:03   

Wel I offered my writings and even showed where you can find them, but through it all, and you look back through all these pages, all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT. Tell me how does that not show that you are all stupid? I mean come on.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:04   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:56)
I'm hotter than that actually.

But your position, as articulated here, has no more substance.

I don't follow TT, Guts, have never read your posts nor your blogs, and have no familiarity with your stance in this debate. So I won't comment on any of that.

I can say, as a meta comment based upon the sample of the last few pages: you come across as an asshole.

Why not assert something with substance? Then we're off to the races.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:06   

Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,02:53)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (Nelson Alonso). †It's a devastating blow to him personally. †He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond. †If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact. †He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response. †In any case, carry on, young fool! †You are the wind beneath my wings.

Thanks, the problem is there's a demonstration of Camargais bullfighting (the bull survives, some human participants may not!) in the local town just starting, and i did rather want to see it.

@Guts,

When you decide to enlighten us with an example of your best work, let me know.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:08   

So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that. Pages and pages of false accusations , no one even knows my position, no one can refute any of my technical blogs, and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole. Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics, and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.

I call shenanigans.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:09   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,09:08)
So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that. Pages and pages of false accusations , no one even knows my position, no one can refute any of my technical blogs, and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole. Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics, and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.

Yep.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:12   

Look in the mirror to see the asshole, look in the mirror.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:13   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,09:12)
Look in the mirror to see the asshole, look in the mirror.

Maybe so.

But just sayin', Guts.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:14   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.

Link to one then.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:18   

Quote
So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that.

You've been the best evidence for that.
Quote
Pages and pages of false accusations

Name one.
Quote
no one even knows my position

Or nobody cares.
Quote
no one can refute any of my technical blogs

"technical blogs"? is that something you made up yourself? Aww, pretending to be a scientist now are you, how sweet! Link to an example please.
Quote
and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole

ting is as ting is.
Quote
Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics

And you tell the difference between them and your target audience how exactly?
Quote
and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.

ting is as ting is.
Quote
I call shenanigans.

Perhaps that has some meaning where you can edit history but your behaviour and refusal to support any of your points is plain over the last couple of pages.

You are making yourself look foolish far better then anybody else is.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:20   

It's very simple, go to TT , click on my name ( not on the sidebar like Alan Faux did, click on my name on a blog i've written) and then refute it. It's very simple, I'm surprised actually that no one has done so yet, it's actually quite laughable.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:22   

Could somebody PM me if

1) gutless runs out of insults, or

2) gutless provides a link to a peer-reviewed paper it authored, or

3) gutless provides a link to a blog where it authored a substantive argument, or

4) gutless answers oldman's questions, or

5) gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion.

Thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:22   

Quote

Name one


My pleasure.

Frostman wrote this:

Quote

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.



This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:

Quote

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts


Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:23   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:22)
Quote

Name one


My pleasure.

Frostman wrote this:

Quote

Incidentally, anon9 is me. †I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things. †I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it. †I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site. †I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog. †Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.



This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:

Quote

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts


Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.

Congratulations. That's how you do it. Say something then support it with evidence.

Now, there are several other questions, not least your changing position on the EF pending.

Get going.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:23   

Quote

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion


lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:26   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:24)
† †  
Quote

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

For the record, I have asked for your position on the 3Ö.2Ö.1Ö.ĒRabbit Thread. I crosslinked back hereówith a warning.

Quote
Zachriel: By the way, I just noticed the discussion on AtBC's Telic Thoughts thread (Warning PG13: juvenile taunts, sexual innuendo, crude language, some partial nudity, and persistent bad taste).

Crude language: "your" damn this board sucks.

Juvenile taunts: My position is that you're a moron.

Sexual innuendo: I'm hotter than that actually.

Some partial nudity: I found it:

Persistent bad taste: No thats me conceding that you're a retard.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:27   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:23)
Quote

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion


lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.

Yet here you are, and you appear to be throwing the most turds.

I guess you must like throwing turds instead of having a worthwhile discussion.

Your "technical blogs" appear to support that position.

If you want meaningful discussion, please pick a topic. There will be some who will oblige, no doubt, on any topic you choose to pick.

Do it, or are you a coward? All mouth? Any trouser there?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:29   

Zachriel writes:
Quote

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.


Zach, your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence, otherwise you wouldn't write such tripe. In fact, if you would look at the memory hole, you'll see your thread derailing post in all it's glory. How sad :(

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:33   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:29)
your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence,

You've yet to prove otherwise yourself, failing to raise yourself above the level of a angry 10 year old throwing insults about.

Pick a topic.

Have a debate.

Forget for a moment that you are an internet sensation, consider the fact that many people have no idea who you are and their first impression of you is from this thread. I imagine the number of actual real life scientists is considerably higher here then you are used to and if you play your cards right you might even learn something.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:36   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:03)
Wel I offered my writings and even showed where you can find them, but through it all, and you look back through all these pages, all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT. Tell me how does that not show that you are all stupid? I mean come on.

Quote
all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT.

And you think that people will believe that solely on the basis of your say-so do you?

Sure, you call it deception, I call it shining a light onto your tactics.

I can see why you might like it to stop and how it's been needling you for a while now until it's got to this point.

Are you drunk Guts? Will you regret this in the morning?

No edit button for you!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,08:42   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:23)
Quote

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion


lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.

Well, then you win. You seem to be the owner/producer of the largest pile of turds here. And you haven't even linked to your "many technical blogs" yet!

Next.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,09:26   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:29)
Zachriel writes:
†  
Quote

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

Zach, your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence, otherwise you wouldn't write such tripe. In fact, if you would look at the memory hole, you'll see your thread derailing post in all it's glory. How sad :(

Quote
Zachriel: I looked for a link on the main page called "Memory Hole" and it was empty.

I appreciate that. Now, everyone can determine for themselves that there was nothing in my comment that deserved banning barring, by any reasonable reading.

Guts: But this is what you do Zach everytime you are proven wrong, you back peddle.

This statement just tickles me. Heaven forbid someone admit error or try to clarify a misstatement.

I'm still smarting from when Hermagoras smacked me down for mixing my Greek and Latin roots.



--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,09:30   

Quote
Raevmo Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Guts:

Why do anti-ID activists here, like Raevmo, feel the need to act like spoiled retarded children? It blows my mind.

Excuse me? I just mentioned that Shubin's claim to fame was his discovery of Tiktaalik. I see you have deleted that post. Why is that?


Comment by Raevmo ó July 5, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Guts Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm I just went through this with Zachriel. I already provided a link to that, the topic is not Shubin's discovery, the topic is well beyond Shubin's discovery.


Comment by Guts ó July 5, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
steve Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm Speaking of Zachriel, why was he covertly banned? That kind of behavior flies at Uncommon Descent, but I thought people here had some ethics.


Comment by steve ó July 5, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Guts Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm he wasn't banned. he was barred from this thread.


Comment by Guts ó July 5, 2008 @ 7:47 pm


--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,09:38   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:23)
I'll post another example of deception, this time from steve:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698

He claims that we moderated his comment, and yet here it is on the live site:

http://telicthoughts.com/aiguys-computer/#comment-193776

When one goes to that link here on AtBC, one finds Steve saying that his comment was in a moderation queue, meaning it did not simply appear on the site as and when submitted. It does not claim that the comment was never published, so showing the comment was published is precisely irrelevant to Steve's comment.

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

    
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,10:01   

Quote
Guts: I didnt ban you at all, I simply sent an off topic comment to the memory hole. And prevented you from doing it again. This is regularly done here and needs no explanation.


All my scribbling about handwaving and netiquette and handwaving and respect and chronicling, and more handwaving and how to make an argument and why. Dozens of comments, hours of work (well minutes anyway). All summarized by a master in a handful of poetic words.

Quote
olegt: "Shut up," he explained.




--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,10:06   

I have been back through TT's list of Guts' postings. Quiet Sunday afternoon here.

The fact that he refuses to point to any of his 'technical blogs' for discussion about how they support ID is that none of them do. There's stuff snipped from elsewhere and a "How about that then!", and plenty of "If this supports x, it's interesting". Rarely is any connection explicitly made, rarely is there anything that can be argued about without asking for more information.

When he does dare to actually make a statement, for example that snake venom evolution is clearly "not standard", and then backs it up with "Huh? Do you have any questions? feel free to ask.", he gets Nick Matzke asking "How is venom evolution far from 'standard'?". Guts' answer: "Read the links."

The thread's still there for anyone who wants to see how it develops, although -- spoiler -- it won't take a path unfamiliar to anyone who's read this far on this one.

Elsewhere, hrun comes a cropper when he asks why convergent evolution is better evidence for front-loading than it is for standard evolutionary biology. Guts having refused to answer the question three times except by saying "It's all answered elsewhere", (hrun gallantly tries to ascertain where and how, thus using up the rest of his lives), he finally deals with the question thusly:"I explained it , twice, in the misconceptions thread, in my first post and linked to an essay about it. You ignored all three attempts. All you're doing is repeating yourself. It doesn't seem like you're actually asking questions, it seems like you're trolling."

To be fair, guts isn't the only one who likes to argue through unexplained co-option where inference is unclear and implications arguable. His use of multiple layers of indirection and wooly definitions, treating those who attempt to clarify his position as idiots and trolls, is also familiar. Although I do think he has a useful innovation in his 'three strikes and you're out' policy; it's rather like the early moves in Minesweeper, but on a board entirely populated by single-mine squares.

Entire academic careers have built on such things (I'm looking at you, po-mo). They never amount to much. They're cancerous growths whose principle purpose is to consume resources, resist attack and grow without care for good or harm done to the rest of the organism. While science has a rather iffy immune system in the short term and on the small scale, it operates very effectively over periods of generations and in the larger context.

Unless it's made illegal.

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,10:25   



You'll need those Guts, you've been served.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,10:25   

Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.

I see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk. †Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!" †I'll let you decide that one: do you support the public's right to be informed of fraud, or do you support Popoff's right to not be deceived? †Considering that he takes millions from the poor, the elderly, and the sick, the answer should be clear.

Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud. †The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.

Nelson Alonso, I have plainly documented your unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts on this forum, notably here and in lengthy detail here: Nelson Alonso. †Your conduct shown therein is indefensible, and indeed you have not defended it. †My last post to Telic Thoughts was not mere random turd-throwing, as you are want to do here. †It had a purpose: to expose you. †In it I gave links to my posts here. †The public has a right to be informed of the unethical conduct flourishing at Telic Thoughts.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,10:51   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:10)
I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years. Notice how steve stays clear away from any of my technical blogs. It's because he's scientifically illiterate.

What I look for in a moderator is an ability to deal with people socially using the written word.

Steve has that.

And, having interacted with for years and having met Steve in person, I can testify that the claim of "scientific illiteracy" is a bogus canard, too.

"Doing it for years"... I had a look back at the archives, and found this terminal post in an exchange of ours from 2000.

As for scientific acumen, one should not confuse scientific knowledge with an inability to take a point and copious amounts of spare time to endlessly reply repeating the initial confusion.

 
Quote

Argumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam
   (np) 1. Argument premised on the basis that any assertion repeated often enough is, perforce, true. This rhetorical mode is a frequent companion of Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK, or denigrations of correspondents. There exists great variability in the frequency and timing of the repetitions.


Discussions should have beginnings, middles, and ends. Someone who declares victory simply because they do not tire of repeating themselves isn't proving anything except the possibility of a perseverative disorder.

 
Quote

Continuous perseveration (inappropriate prolonged continuation and repetition of a current behaviour)


Nelson might ask why I am not a participant at his "technical blogs". I'll take the complementary position to that Nelson laid out back in 2000 about me:

 
Quote

When you have responded to the same criticism over and over again, and when they refuse to respond to other IDers , but just respond to Dembski, then you kinda get the feeling that there is something more going on. Let Wesley and Rich publish their material in the forums Dembski provided, then they will be taken seriously. Otherwise, their motivation is obvious.


Since then, I have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Biology and Philosophy and have two book chapters to my credit on IDC. A further paper should be out in another journal within the year. Since Nelson claimed I was ignorable until published, I'll treat him to a helping of the same standard.

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

    
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:00   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,06:04)
I don't follow TT, Guts, have never read your posts nor your blogs, and have no familiarity with your stance in this debate. So I won't comment on any of that.

I can say, as a meta comment based upon the sample of the last few pages: you come across as an asshole.

As someone who has followed TT for a couple of years, I can say that RB's impression of Guts is quite accurate.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:11   

What's Telic Tards stance on 'moderation'?
Easier to post than here or less?
How many biologists do they have in their line up?
How does 'arbitrarily rank in 4 dimensions, aggregate and discuss' count as science?

edited.

--------------
"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

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:25   

Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:28   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.

Nelson, your mom told you to get your ass out of her basement and get a job. You're an embarrassment.

--------------
"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: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:29   

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
Wow. †How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread? †All for what?

The amazing thing is everyone can see them and discuss their merits. They're not vanished away somewhere. Personally, I wont register at Telic Tards because I doubt any of my posts would get through.

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:33   

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,10:25)
Howdy all,


Wow. †How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread? †All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board? †What's the fear in that? †As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak? †I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here. †All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about? †Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts. †I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning. †It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself. †When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review". †How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine. †All it did was rain. †Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.

LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?

--------------
"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: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:36   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:28)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.

Nelson, your mom told you to get your ass out of her basement and get a job. You're an embarrassment.

Faggotry? Oh hark, the bigot.

Guts, you're a shoitehawk. simple as.

--------------
"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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:36   

Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,12:40   

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,10:36)
Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?

Nah, he's just intoxicated with his own stupidity.

--------------
"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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:04   

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak? †I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here. †All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

lcd

Perhaps you could read this thread again, starting with Guts' first postings... When did the name-calling start? Frankly, given the grade-school level of his comments here, I think an objective observer would say that most of the regulars exhibited remarkable restraint.

But let's not just take my word for it. Let's go to the evidence.

===

Guts first reply on this thread, after posting three without a response: "You're obviously scientifically illiterate."

second reply: "I'll post another example of deception" (later shown by Wes to not be an example of deception after all).

third reply: "It'll be fun excersize (sic) for the comming (sic) weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be"

fourth reply: "You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck"

After a non-abusive reply from Dr.GH, a fifth reply: "you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible."

sixth and seventh reply, all with no intervening comments by anyone else: "What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic." "piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses"

after a non-abusive comment by dnmlthr, this response: "I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please"

Choice insults from some of his other 90 posts

"You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic."

"What a waste of brain cells you are."

"you are weak in terms of intellectual debate."
(note the intellectual content of his comments to this point...)

"How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate."

"Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?"

"You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable (sic) fact of life."

"No thats (sic) me conceding that you're a retard."

"No i'm (sic) trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it."

"Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd."


Etc.
===

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:09   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?

No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:10   

Albatrossity: Actually, I think he had 20-30 or so posts under his belt prior to his latest visit, bringing his latest spree to 60-70 or so.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:22   

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,19:09)

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

lcd: Classical physics is still usable, more than anything else it's a matter of scale. Neither relativity nor QM have replaced newtonian physics for day-to-day* stuff that goes on on the surface of the planet. As for grand unified theories, work is being done, but who knows where it will lead?

The EF, on the other hand, has yet to produce any testable predictions at all.

Edit:
Contrast that with the theory that they're not trying to augment (see examples above) but completely supplant, which is in use every single day all across the globe.
End of edit.

* I'm sure someone around here uses both on a daily basis, but you get my point.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:25   

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,13:09)
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step. †Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

Strawman. Who said it had to be perfect? †It just has to work as advertised, and lead to predictive hypotheses that can lead to experiments that can generate more support for the notion.

That's where ID fails. The EF has not been demonstrated to work on any biological system, it leads to no predictive hypotheses or experiments, and thus there has been no experimental support.

Furthermore, when you say that "mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right" you are ignoring the fact that science is always provisional. Old theories get replaced by new ones IF the evidence supports the new theory, and IF the new theory has greater explanatory power. In many cases the old theory still has some value as well (your example of classical physics is a good one in that regard).


If you think that ID has greater explanatory power, it is your responsibility to show us the evidence for that. If you do so, it will be a first, since Dembski, Behe, Wells and their ilk have demonstrated nothing of the sort.

If you want to call this response a "flame", then go ahead. But it seems pretty civil to me.

ps - thanks, dnmlthr, for the correction. I hadn't run across his posts before, and it sure seemed like he ran up 90 posts last night!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:31   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 06 2008,14:04)
Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak? †I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here. †All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

lcd

Perhaps you could read this thread again, starting with Guts' first postings... When did the name-calling start? Frankly, given the grade-school level of his comments here, I think an objective observer would say that most of the regulars exhibited remarkable restraint.

But let's not just take my word for it. Let's go to the evidence.

===

Guts first reply on this thread, after posting three without a response: "You're obviously scientifically illiterate."

second reply: "I'll post another example of deception" (later shown by Wes to not be an example of deception after all).

third reply: "It'll be fun excersize (sic) for the comming (sic) weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be"

fourth reply: "You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck"

After a non-abusive reply from Dr.GH, a fifth reply: "you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible."

sixth and seventh reply, all with no intervening comments by anyone else: "What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic." "piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses"

after a non-abusive comment by dnmlthr, this response: "I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please"

Choice insults from some of his other 90 posts

"You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic."

"What a waste of brain cells you are."

"you are weak in terms of intellectual debate."
(note the intellectual content of his comments to this point...)

"How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate."

"Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?"

"You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable (sic) fact of life."

"No thats (sic) me conceding that you're a retard."

"No i'm (sic) trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it."

"Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd."


Etc.
===

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?


Guts.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:45)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?

You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.

...and given what I've seen to that point in this thread, I wouldn't suggest anyone hold their breath on that edit button.

Looks like y'all are having some fun. †I can't believe none of you biatches dropped me an email...

:p

Edited because I can.

Edited by Lou FCD on July 06 2008,14:33

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:37   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.

I'd suggest you start a little closer to home, Nellie.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,13:55   

Well, the handful of pages that went up between last night and this morning were more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

ETA: okmaybenot

Edited by Lou FCD on July 06 2008,14:55

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:17   

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,11:09)
†  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?

No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy. †It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought. †I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though. †I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here. †First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics". †Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years? †Then we had Relativity. †Now it's Quantum Physics. †So what about GUT? †I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step. †Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

We'll take that as a 'no, I won't' to my original question.

--------------
"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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:22   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:06)
Carlson using stars to simulate "emotes" that is so weird, i gotta tell ya.

That's it?  I spend two and a half hours crammed like a sardine in a 757, then scurry like mad between terminals to catch my puddle-jumper home, all in anticipation of some witty riposte from you, and that is the best you come up with?

You are so gay.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:23   

No using stars to do emotes is gay.

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:26   

Quote

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?


Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:26   

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.

You seem quite obsessed with homosexuality. What's that about?

--------------
"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: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:26   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.



pleased i didn't fall into Teh_gay_trap. This is fulla stars.

edit: yes.

--------------
"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

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:27   

You're the one that mentioned gay first, not me.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:40)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,10:36)
Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?

Nah, he's just intoxicated with his own stupidity.

Reminds me of this classic exchange from The Matchmaker:

Quote
Marcy Tizard: Is being an idiot like being high all the time?

Sean Kelly: No, it's like being constantly right.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:27   

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)
Quote

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?


Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.

Well it's better than putting up with "research", "experiments" and "science", eh?

--------------
"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

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,14:29