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: 4966 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: 2722 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.) -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

stevestory Posts: 13407 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: 2722 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". -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

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: 13407 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: 2561 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: 2324 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 Gauger’s 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 Gauger’s 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 Gauger’s 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 Gauger’s 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: 1552 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 Gauger’s 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 Gauger’s 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 Gauger’s 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: 1552 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 Gauger’s 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 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 Gauger’s 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 Dembski’s method, a false positive refers to using Dembski’s 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 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

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.