AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Frostman

form_srcid: Frostman

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.20.195

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Frostman

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Frostman%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/11/26 21:37:14, Link
Author: Frostman
This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman.

It all started when Bradford quoted a recent NYT article by Paul Davies which caused some discussion.                            
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
Davies's editorial ends on a note that anti-theists find most discordant.                                                          
Quote (Davies @ NYT)
But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
                                                       
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
However Davies wrote two important sentences preceding the above sentence:                                                        
Quote (Davies @ NYT)
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.
Davies was quoted out of context. What Davies says, in context, is most certainly something non-theists would support.
                                                     
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
What Davies is clearly inferring is that an element of faith underlies human endeavors and science is no exception. Anti-theists are notorious for their distortions of the meaning of faith and an insistence it must be blind. That is inconsistent with Davies' points. I've used the term anti-theist which you altered to non-theist. Their meaning differs.
                                                     
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
I changed anti-theist to non-theist because the former appears inflammatory. I try to cool the discussion whenever possible.

   The term anti-theist connotes an us-vs-them mentality; two opposing sides warring against each other. On the other hand, non-theist connotes a person who happens to disagree with theism.

   My apologies if you were being inflammatory on purpose.

This is where things get interesting.  Bradford deleted the above post.  The policy at Telic Thoughts is to move off-topic posts to a page called the "memory hole".  On-topic posts are not so moved, and outright deletion of posts is not done at all (with the exception of spam, etc).  In response he said,                                                        
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
Frostman, do not accuse and pretend an apology in the same sentence. As for what is inflammatory, I'll be the judge of that. If you think the blog entry is inflammatory you can always exit. I'll show you the door.

I inquired if he indeed deleted my post (as I did not know then).  After my asking a second time, he said yes.

Bradford then wrote a very angry post, which he soon deleted himself (instead of moving it to the memory hole per the policy, again).  It was interesting to see the outburst, and sadly only part of it survives in my response to it,                                                          
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
                                                             
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
If you're going to accuse me of quoting someone out of context (when I linked to the actual article) then have the integrity to respond to the actual wording I used.

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. It does not matter which term I use — they are equivalent insofar as agreeing with Davies or not.

As I said, "anti-theist" sets the stage for an us-verses-them mentality, which is to be avoided. By pointing out the problematic quoting, I did not wish to inadvertently take the side of "anti-theists". That is why the term is inflammatory — you are setting the stage for those who disagree to be on the "anti-theist" side. It's just modern-day tribalism.                                                        
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
You don't give a rat's behind about avoiding inflammatory language.

Wow, a double entendre with irony. What are your reasons for believing that?

Not surprisingly, this post was soon deleted (not moved to the memory hole).  I begin to notice other posts being deleted.  There were two by someone protesting the deletion of my posts --- deleted.  There were a few by keiths (another member of TT) saying that he witnessed the deletion of the posts --- deleted.  Keiths wrote a post which quoted the deletion policy at Telic Thoughts --- deleted.  I quoted my first deleted post --- deleted.  I asked Bradford if his behavior was appropriate in light of the deletion policy --- deleted.

It should be noted that Guts, another member of Telic Thoughts, said the memory hole was not working soon after the deletion of my first post.  Guts also said that he fixed it, and his test posts at the memory hole presumably demonstrated this to him.  At first this appears to be the reason why posts were deleted rather than moved.  However, the rash of deletions occurred after Guts fixed it.

Furthermore, the deletions happened before and after Bradford cheekily said, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine. :grin:"  As it was obvious these posts were being deleted rather than moved, it was indeed an impudent comment.  There are two of my posts currently in the memory hole; I suspect they were moved there by Guts before Bradford was able to delete them, as Guts mentioned that he moved some posts.

At this point, Bradford's posts which reprimanded me were present, but my posts to which the reprimands refer were deleted.  This left a clear impression that I somehow flew off the handle, when in fact my posts were entirely appropriate, if only the reader could see them.

I made a couple posts calmly inquiring about this fit of deletions, about whether Bradford's behavior was appropriate --- deleted.  The last post I made was,                                    
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
It is unethical to make accusations while deleting (not moving to the memory hole) the posts upon which those accusations are made, and also deleting (again, not moving to the memory hole) responses to those accusations. Do you disagree?

That, of course, was promptly deleted.  Soon after I obtained a forbidden message from the Apache server at telicthoughts.com, meaning my IP address was banned.  I confirmed this by successfully being able to connect to telicthoughts.com from an anonymous proxy.

Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in one thread, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.

I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.  Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.

Date: 2007/11/26 22:31:09, Link
Author: Frostman
Somehow I forgot to give the thread in which this all happened:

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

Date: 2007/11/27 01:23:55, Link
Author: Frostman
I have not yet addressed one aspect of my recent banning.  No doubt a Telic Thoughts member will write to me and say, "Well, we told you to stop posting on that thread, but you continued.  You got yourself banned."  I would interpret that statement as: "We told you to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, but you kept making a fuss about it."

Allow me to run with this analogy.  The man behind the curtain is Bradford.  The reality of the situation is the appropriateness of my posts together with the inappropriateness of his behavior.  The apparatus controlled by the man behind the curtain is an illusion-making machine.  It works by deleting all posts which mention his dishonest conduct, while preserving his posts which admonish my posts.  Voila, the illusion is complete: my behavior appears questionable, and Bradford appears to rightly scold me for it.

Well, the illusion is not very good, because I clearly see the man behind the curtain.  I bring attention to this fact.  The man looks at me and says, "You best not say anything more," wagging his finger at me, "or I'll ban you."

At this point there is no turning back, at least for me.  The illusion is directed toward falsely discrediting me while at the same time concealing his dishonest behavior.  It is inconceivable that I would put my head down and walk away.  The story ends either with my banishment or with the public recognition that there is a man behind the curtain engaged in mischief.  

I hope that is clear.

Date: 2007/12/02 23:40:17, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007, 17:16)
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.

What?  The comments were deleted, against TT policy --- not "gave the impression that comments were just being deleted".  They were not saved.  They are not there now.  They are gone.                                                              
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007, 17:16)
I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

Why on earth would you direct these statements toward me?  By deleting comments permanently, you have shown that you do not truly respect and understand the purpose of the memory hole.  Not me.  You are the one who violated TT policy.  Not me.

In reference to the previous analogy, it turns out the man behind the curtain was Guts, not Bradford.  To Guts' credit, he wrote a contrite apology to me privately in email, acknowledging that he made a serious mistake.  His private apology was nothing like the equivocal one he gave here, however.

The obvious question I asked him was, Why didn't he make an apology on TT?  As a direct consequence of his mistakes, the TT members had a false impression of what happened.  My conduct was entirely rational, yet since my posts were deleted, there was no record of my defense.  Guts had already apologized to me privately for this.  Most TT members do not frequent this thread here on antievolution.org.  Why didn't Guts come clean to the readers of TT?

You won't believe what came next.  Guts agreed to make such an apology --- but only on the condition that I renounce an opinion which I expressed on the TT thread!  It sounds unbelievable, I know.  Not only is Guts unwilling to do the right thing, but he commits extortion on top of it.

Guts wanted me to disavow my position that the Davies quote was out of context (bold mine):        
Quote (Paul Davies @ NYT)
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

After many tries, Guts was unable to understand that, in regard to atheism or "anti-theism", using only the last (non-bolded) sentence without the previous two is inappropriate.  Davies is no theist, as is well known, and as the first two sentences above suggest.  Quoting only the last sentence misrepresents Davies' position.

Guts did not agree.  Which is fine.  We are free to disagree, and we are free to debate the issue further if we so choose.  Or so I thought.

As it turns out, Bradford was incredibly offended by my suggestion that the quote was out of context.  Indeed, the first permanent deletion was done by Bradford (the post was not "saved" to be later inserted in the memory hole).  Incidentally, it should be noted that Bradford was the first one to violate the TT deletion policy, and that action is what precipitated these events.  Guts was backing up Bradford the whole way.  Guts was also expressing outrage at the very idea of an out of context quote.

The interesting part is that my opinion of the quote is irrelevant.  I repeatedly made clear that all I wanted was for Guts to do the right thing --- to explain the situation to the readers of TT, as he at least tried to do here.  But Guts kept dodging, instead wanting to talk about the Davies quote and how my opinion is unacceptable.  He would only admit his mistakes on TT if I renounced my position.

Guts then took the desperate position that it doesn't matter where he makes the apology.  The following is the final unanswered email I sent to Guts:

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

Date: 2008/01/06 14:05:07, Link
Author: Frostman
Just to wrap this up, I sent the following email to Mike Gene on 12/17/2007, to which there was no reply:

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

Date: 2008/01/07 03:35:43, Link
Author: Frostman
Guts has not denied that he attempted to commit extortion by asking to me to a make false statement in exchange for lifting my ban at TT.

Guts still believes that holding an opinion that a particular quote is taken out of context is sufficient grounds for banning.

Guts has ratcheted up the rhetoric.  My rational arguments about why a particular quote by Paul Davies is taken out of context is now construed as "harassment".  Let Guts provide the exact post of mine which he claims may be so construed: he will find none.  He will find each and every post of mine at TT to be calmly and rationally presented.

Guts has still not made a public apology at TT commensurate with his public apology here (and his profuse private apology to me in email).

Guts has officially discarded what he said to me in email.  It is normally bad form to quote a private email, but by practicing historical revisionism Guts forces my hand.                                          
Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)
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.

Since I used a temporary gmail account for this exchange, I am prepared to hand over the account to a neutral party who will verify that the above words are authentic.

As I have stated several times now, the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place.  At TT, there is no right to disagree.

That said, Guts may indeed see my point of view even though he asserts otherwise.  The gist of my argument was that the omission of the two sentences preceding the Davies quote in question produced an impression which was unfaithful to Davies' intended meaning.                                    
Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)
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.

Yes, you nailed it precisely, Guts.  Bradford was not talking about Davies' intended meaning.  That is exactly why the quote is taken out of context.  The number one rule in quoting is to be faithful to the intended meaning.  Thank you for clarifying.

Lest the conversation gets sidetracked on this, let me repeat again: the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place.  My position is a rational one which deserves a place in a forum which values a free exchange of ideas.

Blog owners have a right to censor content on their blog.  However, an ethical problem occurs when censors try to pretend they are not censoring.

TT does not support a free exchange of ideas.  And that is fine.  But let us not pretend otherwise, okay Guts?

Guts, I am not writing here because I want you to lift my ban.  In reference to your mistakes which you have admitted both here at AE and to me in email, I want you to come clean.  This is your ethical (though not legal) obligation.  I shall conclude by repeating what I have said to you before in this regard:

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

Date: 2008/07/05 14:42:51, Link
Author: Frostman
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.]

Date: 2008/07/05 14:42:51, Link
Author: Frostman
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.]

Date: 2008/07/05 15:15:27, Link
Author: Frostman
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/

Date: 2008/07/05 15:15:27, Link
Author: Frostman
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/

Date: 2008/07/05 15:16:22, Link
Author: Frostman
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.
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >

Date: 2008/07/05 15:16:22, Link
Author: Frostman
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.
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >

Date: 2008/07/05 15:17:03, Link
Author: Frostman
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/

Date: 2008/07/05 15:17:03, Link
Author: Frostman
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/

Date: 2008/07/05 15:17:41, Link
Author: Frostman
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

Date: 2008/07/05 15:17:41, Link
Author: Frostman
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

Date: 2008/07/06 05:48:08, Link
Author: Frostman
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.

Date: 2008/07/06 05:48:08, Link
Author: Frostman
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.

Date: 2008/07/06 06:09:18, Link
Author: Frostman
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.

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

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

Date: 2008/07/06 06:09:18, Link
Author: Frostman
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.

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

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

Date: 2008/07/06 07:53:22, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

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

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

Date: 2008/07/06 07:53:22, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)

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

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

Date: 2008/07/06 10:25:35, Link
Author: Frostman
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.

I see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk.  Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!"  I'll let you decide that one: do you support the public's right to be informed of fraud, or do you support Popoff's right to not be deceived?  Considering that he takes millions from the poor, the elderly, and the sick, the answer should be clear.

Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud.  The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.

Nelson Alonso, I have plainly documented your unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts on this forum, notably here and in lengthy detail here: Nelson Alonso.  Your conduct shown therein is indefensible, and indeed you have not defended it.  My last post to Telic Thoughts was not mere random turd-throwing, as you are want to do here.  It had a purpose: to expose you.  In it I gave links to my posts here.  The public has a right to be informed of the unethical conduct flourishing at Telic Thoughts.

Date: 2008/07/06 10:25:35, Link
Author: Frostman
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:
Quote
Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.

I see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk.  Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!"  I'll let you decide that one: do you support the public's right to be informed of fraud, or do you support Popoff's right to not be deceived?  Considering that he takes millions from the poor, the elderly, and the sick, the answer should be clear.

Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud.  The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.

Nelson Alonso, I have plainly documented your unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts on this forum, notably here and in lengthy detail here: Nelson Alonso.  Your conduct shown therein is indefensible, and indeed you have not defended it.  My last post to Telic Thoughts was not mere random turd-throwing, as you are want to do here.  It had a purpose: to expose you.  In it I gave links to my posts here.  The public has a right to be informed of the unethical conduct flourishing at Telic Thoughts.

Date: 2008/07/06 14:48:41, Link
Author: Frostman
This is one of my favorites:
     
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,04:58)
Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.

Functions from to ? You got the Gamma function and the Reimann-Zeta function?





You got those?  Do ya?  Huh?  Well, do ya?  We got 'em right there.  Read 'em and weep.  Yeah, that's right.  I be guessin' yo blog ain't so hot now, punk.

Date: 2008/07/06 14:48:41, Link
Author: Frostman
This is one of my favorites:
     
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,04:58)
Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.

Functions from to ? You got the Gamma function and the Reimann-Zeta function?





You got those?  Do ya?  Huh?  Well, do ya?  We got 'em right there.  Read 'em and weep.  Yeah, that's right.  I be guessin' yo blog ain't so hot now, punk.

Date: 2008/07/07 19:01:38, Link
Author: Frostman
The suggestion that Nelson/Guts may be into AIDS denialism reminds me of this post by Mike Gene to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
Quote
Democratic Party Family Values

1.  Adultery is not bad as long as it is between consenting adults

2.  Wife-beating is okay as long as the wife doesn't care

3.  Women should get jobs benefits if they perform sexually for the boss

4.  If "everyone does it," it is good

5.  Character doesn't matter

It is the only post by mikebgene@aol.com archived at Google Groups.  A web search on that address confirms it is the Mike Gene of the intertubes ID debates.

I was reminded of this because, like AIDS denialism, it is one of those things which suggests our friends may be a bit off kilter in ways other than the ID realm.  It's a second data point.  There are of course scientists who happen to be politically conservative, however the kind of stances that Mike Gene has taken above are indicative of something beyond merely being conservative.

Date: 2008/07/07 19:01:38, Link
Author: Frostman
The suggestion that Nelson/Guts may be into AIDS denialism reminds me of this post by Mike Gene to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
Quote
Democratic Party Family Values

1.  Adultery is not bad as long as it is between consenting adults

2.  Wife-beating is okay as long as the wife doesn't care

3.  Women should get jobs benefits if they perform sexually for the boss

4.  If "everyone does it," it is good

5.  Character doesn't matter

It is the only post by mikebgene@aol.com archived at Google Groups.  A web search on that address confirms it is the Mike Gene of the intertubes ID debates.

I was reminded of this because, like AIDS denialism, it is one of those things which suggests our friends may be a bit off kilter in ways other than the ID realm.  It's a second data point.  There are of course scientists who happen to be politically conservative, however the kind of stances that Mike Gene has taken above are indicative of something beyond merely being conservative.

Date: 2008/07/07 23:02:05, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (RupertG @ July 07 2008,02:45)
(blinks in the Monday morning light. Reads thread.)

Was there any purpose or design to what just happened? Perhaps there's some sort of test we could apply...

I have also been wondering what happened.  Alan was the first (I think) to suggest that he was trying to provoke a banning,                                
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

I had this theory,                                
Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,07:53)

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

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

But now I see an additional explanation.  Notice that in twenty pages of posts, Nelson has not addressed any of his behavior I exposed here, here, and here.  He won't address it because it's indefensible.  I mean, for cryin' out loud, he endorses quote-mining and engages in extortion.

Guts/Nelson is accustomed to deleting disagreeable posts--in fact he just deleted his own post at Telic Thoughts (yet another case of him violating his own site's policy).  Not having a delete button on this forum, he tries another tactic: bury the offending posts.  His posting orgy began right after I revealed his devious emails.  It took nine months for this thread to reach 12 pages, and then two days to reach 32.  In the legal world this is called "papering the court."

Again, it may just be wishful thinking that I could take credit for his downfall.  Nelson's recent escapade here has been awesome: the outcome is a straightforward, easily-linkable case against Telic Thoughts.

Nelson has been a Mike Gene sycophant for a while.  In 2001 he ran a fan site dedicated to Julie Thomas (alias of Mike Gene) called idtheory.net, where Nelson writes on the front page:
             
Quote
A few years ago,a scientist who went by the alias of Julie Thomas entered the internet. She contributed a series of posts to various origins forums that will live in the annals of Intelligent Design Theory forever.

This site is dedicated to her and the countless others who sacrifice their precious time to advance the scientific dialogue in this field.

LOL!  Now that Nelson has fallen off the deep end, one has to wonder whether Mike is considering severing ties with him.  But given their long history together, I rather doubt it.

Date: 2008/07/07 23:02:05, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (RupertG @ July 07 2008,02:45)
(blinks in the Monday morning light. Reads thread.)

Was there any purpose or design to what just happened? Perhaps there's some sort of test we could apply...

I have also been wondering what happened.  Alan was the first (I think) to suggest that he was trying to provoke a banning,                                
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

I had this theory,                                
Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,07:53)

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

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

But now I see an additional explanation.  Notice that in twenty pages of posts, Nelson has not addressed any of his behavior I exposed here, here, and here.  He won't address it because it's indefensible.  I mean, for cryin' out loud, he endorses quote-mining and engages in extortion.

Guts/Nelson is accustomed to deleting disagreeable posts--in fact he just deleted his own post at Telic Thoughts (yet another case of him violating his own site's policy).  Not having a delete button on this forum, he tries another tactic: bury the offending posts.  His posting orgy began right after I revealed his devious emails.  It took nine months for this thread to reach 12 pages, and then two days to reach 32.  In the legal world this is called "papering the court."

Again, it may just be wishful thinking that I could take credit for his downfall.  Nelson's recent escapade here has been awesome: the outcome is a straightforward, easily-linkable case against Telic Thoughts.

Nelson has been a Mike Gene sycophant for a while.  In 2001 he ran a fan site dedicated to Julie Thomas (alias of Mike Gene) called idtheory.net, where Nelson writes on the front page:
             
Quote
A few years ago,a scientist who went by the alias of Julie Thomas entered the internet. She contributed a series of posts to various origins forums that will live in the annals of Intelligent Design Theory forever.

This site is dedicated to her and the countless others who sacrifice their precious time to advance the scientific dialogue in this field.

LOL!  Now that Nelson has fallen off the deep end, one has to wonder whether Mike is considering severing ties with him.  But given their long history together, I rather doubt it.

Date: 2008/07/08 16:26:53, Link
Author: Frostman
O.  

M.  

G.

Guts/Nelson has become really desperate.  I mean really desperate.  At Heddle's site he just accused me of spamming Telic Thoughts with pornography.  Here was my response:
Quote
This is the very first accusation that I have spammed, by Guts or by anyone.

Within the past eight months since the banning occurred, and especially within the hundred-plus posts Guts has made during the past few days, there has not been one mention of this accusation.

It is only now, after Guts has profoundly embarrassed himself, do we hear this accusation. I leave it up to the reader to estimate its validity.

Date: 2008/07/09 00:41:51, Link
Author: Frostman
keiths,

Fifty minutes later, your wish is granted! Bradford shows up!

And Bradford has gone into conniptions too!  He is claiming that I am your sockpuppet!  Nelson's level 9 fireball has engulfed other members!  Transparent, self-destructive lying is taking over Telic Thoughts!  Oh glorious day!

Date: 2008/07/09 19:50:39, Link
Author: Frostman
I had not known anything about Joy outside of a handful of Telic Thoughts quotes.  Assuming it is true that so much of her family has died, her worldview seems rather less funny when I consider the conditions under which it was formed.

Date: 2008/07/09 20:48:18, Link
Author: Frostman
silverspoon, I did not intend to give the impression that my comment was directed toward you.  I still assess Joy to be delusional, it's just that I acknowledge a tragic backstory as well.

Date: 2008/07/12 10:33:19, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (olegt @ July 11 2008,23:12)
Mike Gene/Julie Thomas gets her panties in a twist.

~~shakes head and rolls eyes~~

Mike surgically extracts a portion of the Guts debacle and attempts to play the persecution card with it.  He quotes me:                                        
Quote
Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud. The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.

That quote is in reference to the dishonest dealings of Guts which are now thoroughly documented in the Guts/Nelson Alsono thread.  Nelson, in short, has gone mad.  If at any point Nelson had publicly taken responsibility for his actions at Telic Thoughts, or if Mike had denounced Nelson's behavior, then the issue would have been resolved.

The site continues to be run by Nelson, whose habits include deleting reasonable posts on a whim, ignoring site policies, extortion, lying, and banning to serve his own interest.  The evidence is all there in the Nelson thread given above.

At the end of the email correspondence shown at the beginning of that thread, you will see that I asked Mike several times to step in.  He never did.  That is really when Telic Thoughts became a dishonorable place: when Mike could not bring himself to criticize Nelson's behavior.

When it appeared that JackT was banned, I felt an obligation to bring attention to this possibility.  Had I signed in as "Frostman2" or whatever, my post would have been deleted immediately.  Telic Thoughts readers should be aware of what happens there and the type of characters running the show, especially if another whimsical banning had just occurred.  I absolutely stand behind the practice of exposing frauds.  If the frauds complain then that is too bad--stop being a fraud, then.

(Incidentally, by calling him Nelson Alonso, I gave Guts a pretty big hint that it was me.  He didn't get the hint, nor did he even get the explanation of the hint after several tries.)

(And also incidentally, with fateful irony JackT was eventually banned, but for reasons even more capricious than those originally suspected.)

So Mike, let us not hear you employ this as a persecution card for your personal ID crusade.  This has nothing to do with ID, but only with simple ethics.  The problems Nelson has caused for Telic Thoughts, and your complicity in them, would apply equally if the site were dedicated to clog dancing.

Good Day.

Date: 2008/07/13 15:51:58, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (Zachriel @ July 13 2008,15:00)
MikeGene blogs a Farewell to Telic Thoughts.

Here was his previous farewell as Julie Thomas.

Until the next pseudonym, Mike/Julie.

P.S. Oh and don't worry about the inmates--they'll be running things quite nicely.

Date: 2008/07/20 17:00:18, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:04)
I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.  However, there are some "PhD types" who enjoy my style and even encourage it.

What a coincidence.  I just heard you (or someone like you) today on public radio. Fast-forward to the 31-minute mark in this podcast.  Description:
 
Quote
Act Three. Sucker MC-Squared.

Bob Berenz had a good job as an electrician. But he wanted to do something bigger. He came up with an idea for an invention. But as he studied physics texts to see if his invention could work, he happened upon the biggest idea of his life: a revelation about physics that would disprove Einstein, and Newton. That is, if Bob's right. Bob's friend, Robert Andrew Powell, reports the story. He's a sports writer and the author of We Own This Game, about youth football. (16-1/2 minutes)

Date: 2008/07/21 22:02:49, Link
Author: Frostman
Quote (olegt @ July 21 2008,12:59)
[...]
                   
Quote
[...]
  a) Please judge the importance of the paper to its specific field.

          not important ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very important

  b) Please judge the broad interest of the paper, apart from from its
     importance to its specific field, to a wide spectrum of physicists.

        not interesting ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very interesting

  c) Please judge the validity of the paper.

     probably not valid ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) probably valid

[...]

I have nothing relevant to add, yet I cannot resist mentioning how the parenthesis above triggered in my mind a deep longing, sad and unrequited, as a beautiful girl once loved long ago but for whom circumstance was unkind, to write in Lisp once again.  And, lo, the world was overtaken by the foolish who did not understand that code is data and data is code.  XML is s-expression in a cheap tuxedo, yet in thy wicked attire we are forsaken, even unto the end of the world.

Date: 2008/07/23 20:55:20, Link
Author: Frostman
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:27)
It's more like situational ethics. For example, in pre-Christian Israel, it was commanded to make animal sacrifices as a sin atonement. We can safely assume that God viewed those activities, in those times, as lawful and moral. In our times, for Christians, animal sacrifices for sin atonement would be viewed as an abomination. Moral at one place and time, blasphemy at another place and time. Situational ethics.
This is a common argument.  But the issue is not when God desired animal sacrifices, but rather that he ever demanded them at all.  I see two possible explanations:

(1) God, assuming He exists, chose the Israelites and required of them ritual killings of farm animals in exchange for atonement.

(2) The practice of ritual animal killings was present among many ancient cultures, of which the Israelites were one.  The ancient Greeks happened to be another.  (Pythagoras is said to have sacrificed an ox after discovering the famous theorem which now bears his name.)  The Israelites were not at all unique in this regard.  And like all tribal societies, they had their own mythologies and practices which served to strengthen the tribal bond.  Their religion is explainable within this cultural context and within the context of other contemporaneous religions.  There is no reason to suspect some supernatural uniqueness about the Israelites.

Which is more likely?  Are you sure that God, at one time, needed favors in the form of slain goats?  Isn't it more likely that the Israelites only thought He did, just as the Greeks thought sacrifices pleased their gods?

The split between naturalists and true believers is succinctly demonstrated in these two choices.

Date: 2008/07/27 16:06:38, Link
Author: Frostman
Since I saw this recently mentioned someplace on TT, I wish to clarify that I stepped in with the anon9 name when it appeared that JackT was banned, like myself and keiths, for expressing opposing viewpoints (though a pretext was used in place of this fact).  And indeed JackT was later banned, under a new pretext.

When someone like Guts/Nelson becomes unhinged and starts banning folks for unreasonable reasons, I think we have a duty to say something. His unethical, deranged behavior is shown unequivocally in this thread.  Nelson does have a right to ban without reason, but participants also have a right to know what they are getting into.  In particular they should be aware that TT's own policies are not followed.

It is interesting to see the spin on the clear-cut evidence given in this thread.  It appears to only consist of my posting under anon9, which I did just once.  But again, this was only to shed light on Nelson's behavior.  Even if we accept that my using a second name was underhanded, nonetheless it happened long after keiths and I were banned.  So it's completely irrelevant to the issue.  (Yet I still attest that if a con-man like Nelson complains about being exposed, then too bad--stop being a con-man, then.  But that's just my opinion.)

And we hear not a single peep out of the IDist regulars at TT about Nelson's conduct shown here.  I mean, this thread is self-explanatory, both in the email exchange posted at the beginning and in Nelson's subsequent eruption.  Not one word from them about it.  (Heddle called Nelson on it, but Heddle (from what I can tell) is not quite an ID advocate in the TT sense.)

On a lighter note, this thread now appears on the first page of a Google search for Nelson Alonso.  How embarrassing for him.  On which I say:  Yeessss, yeessss.  Ooooh let me taste your tears, Nelson!  Mmmm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!  Ooooh the tears of unfathomable sadness!  Mmmm yummy!  Yummy, you guys!

[I wonder how many will recognize the above reference.]

Date: 2008/12/20 18:53:09, Link
Author: Frostman
This just in: Joy has magic powers:
Quote
Not just being able to find 4-leaf clovers in fields of clover without hardly trying. I also mess with electricity in a meaningful way. Street lights flick off when I pass. Sometimes in a line. Sometimes they flick back on as far behind my trajectory as they flick off ahead. And I can't wear a watch. Within hours it starts keeping screwy time, stops altogether, or starts running backwards. I've a box full of various types of watches people have given me over the years, in the box because not a one of 'em can keep decent time. Not even the wind-ups, not even the pocket-watches (they take longer to mess up, though).

Quote
Oh… and I can fry the electrical wiring in a car or truck just by sitting in it, though me actually turning the key can do it faster.

When asked why she didn't take the Randi challenge,
Quote
I'd take Randi's money if I thought he wouldn't define my 'ability' out of existence after the fact so as not to pay me. [...] I'm quite sure synesthesia would disqualify me from the Randi running.

Hmm ... four-leaf clovers ... keeping your magic powers hidden from scrutiny ... Joy, are you a leprechaun?

 

 

 

=====