Your IP address is 220.127.116.11
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
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 'jxs%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #4
|Date: 2005/10/04 00:13:28, Link|
We all know you are proud of your engineering degrees -- and justifiably so -- but certainly you do realize that this is a remarkably juvenile "argument" you're making, right?
You are not, in general, chatting with a few mediocre biology BA grads here. You are trying to argue against millions of physicists, chemists, engineers, and biologists.
I assume your engineering degrees at least touched on system control theory, yes? Perhaps you should read a bit John Doyle's work (he's at Caltech, for googling help). The origin of "advanced technology" -- similarities between designed and natural complex systems.
In a nutshell: intelligent processes make complex things through predicition; non-intelligent processes just throw things at the wall and see what sticks. The end result is the same, regarding the apparent complexity of the systems. A lack of intelligence in "design" just means more fatalities.
An actual engineer, with a doctorate and everything, arguing against your mindless dogmatism. Whatever will you do?
|Date: 2005/10/04 00:33:47, Link|
If evolution, the most significant, pervasive, and profound theory in all science is merely "pseudo-science" (as you claim) then we're in some serious trouble.
But, as this little theory is at the heart of every significant practical advance in modern medicine and biology -- well, I think something is a bit off here...
"based on untenable and unproveable gross and rediculously impossible assumptions"
Actually the assumptions underlying evolutionary principles are quite plausible and, interestingly, broadly applicable. One might even be so inclined to describe the progression of creationist arguments as "evolutionary". You know, an incremental adaptation to the prevailing environment...
"I mean math goes a little farther than long division."
Indeed. And cognition did not end in the 18th century. Perhaps you'd like to join us in the 21st?
|Date: 2006/03/08 21:51:29, Link|
I think the appropriate metric is number of approved posts prior to banning. My personal best is 2 with a ban on the third submitted, but nearly half of my accounts have died at 0.
I'm generally polite and keep my critical comments narrowly focused. I've not tried feigning religion, though I do make an effort to acknowledge some of the broader validity of their beliefs. With DaveScot, I try to emphasize a CS/engineering viewpoint. (I presume that is his putative field, no?)
Comment qualities that generally result in a ban:
a. Short, concise corrections of blatant ignorance.
b. Demonstration of significant expertise on a topic.
Accepted comments require:
a. Long, rambling posts diluting the criticism.
b. Presence of a "key word" and corresponding "rebuttal" commentary based on that "key word" (ie. anything suggestive of "materialism", or a tendency for us to see patterns in the noise, and so on).
c. Concise corrections which directly conflict with their delusionally presumed topics of expertise, which obviously include a fallacious and remarkably ignorant "dismissal" commentary (ie. energy = temperature = heat and the single photon calorimeter link).
I'm sick of your crap jxs. You are outta here. -ds
|Date: 2006/03/08 23:31:58, Link|
Another hypothesis, on which I am currently awaiting experimental results, is to simply talk over everyone's head. It might violate the didactic spirit of the competition, but it does obey the letter of the law: I highlight serious flaws in their knowledge and assumptions, but they (and most of their readers) won't necessarily recognize that.
My first attempt was likely a little too clear and barbed, but my primary concern here is that perhaps general comprehension (defined by some fraction of the population at AE, perhaps?) of the criticism should be a requirement for scoring points in this competition.
And if anyone happens to know a sociologist or psychologist grad student looking for a thesis... well, this process could make for a few fascinating papers. ####, even the question of how a profoundly arrogant person ends up in science (me) versus anti-science (gosh, take your pick) is quite intriquing. Is there a common cause of divergence between the "fields"?
|Date: 2007/03/01 00:22:20, Link|
Not long ago, I posted a comment at Uncommon Descent that was entirely reasonable, well-referenced, and (not to be immodest) on a topic of well-credentialed personal expertise. It seems to have been "lost" in the ether, however. I find most of my comments there are lost in their ether.
Maybe they have a bad Internet connection? Maybe their disks are full? Maybe they are running the site on a processor from the fifties?
First, I suggest we hold a fund raiser for UD: let's buy them a year at hosting company from this century!
Second, if that isn't enough, I propose to provide a helpful addendum blog. Copyright prevents us from duplicating every post and comment, but we could track changes to the site, and add helpful references (and peer-reviewed summaries regarding the content) for each post and comment.
Most importantly, we should encourage UD participants to submit their additions to both UD and the UDA -- just in case the data gets lost on its way to UD.
I'm sure the community can manage to bankroll the necessary CPU and bandwidth costs for UD/UDA. With your help, we can help end the plague of arbitrary comment loss.
My B-school people tell me this might cost as much $30 a year, but I am committed to science and I'm prepared to offer a significant portion of my vast fortune and pre-pay *multiple* years of service -- simply because the discussion on UD/UDA is worth more than any tiny pile of small dollar bills could be.
Will you join in my quest to see the full realization of the UD community?
|Date: 2007/03/01 00:59:03, Link|
Why would a site so reknowned, and lead by so many brilliants thinkers and theorists, end up losing so many comments with out noticing?
Clearly their IT staff must be criminally incompetent. Money solves many problems. You know they aren't getting anything like the slavish NSF funding they dole out to "in the box" thinkers -- their "out of the box" theoretical work (probably something to do with conspiracies... ####, big pharma blocks my cancer cures several times a week, so I know where they're coming from...) gets in the way of major "mainstream" funding.
But I know some people that can plug ethernet cables together, so maybe we can help them lose fewer comments. Maybe?
|Date: 2007/03/01 01:23:04, Link|
Dropping the parody for the moment: I've been denied three utterly factual comments at UD today. Maybe it would be a good thing to document the "lost" comments?
Maybe UD has no sway beyond true believers, but I think it would be nice if the second google link was to the UD Addendum: "Comments that got lost and for whatever reason were briefly or never visible there, though posted"
And, of course, I would like to see an unbiased summary of the real UD posts: There is nothing as effective as a fanatic to scare the moderates away.
|Date: 2007/03/01 02:04:44, Link|
Out of curiosity, has an ID fan posted in the last several hundred pages of comments?
I'm in that mood where you want to find one to viscerally gut. Like with a jagged, but cruelly dull, stone...
Thanks and kisses.
|Date: 2007/03/01 02:34:44, Link|
I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but: Congratulations, your brain appears to be generally functional!
Some people do like the calming, balancing activity of the scientifically demonstrated calming, balancing act of participating in customary ceremonies, traditions, and ritual acts. Plus you get the psychological benefit of following your instinctive authoritarian leanings (as animals, our residual pack leadership bias).
I'm an atheist, but I really wish I could be a hard-core believer -- I think life would be simpler and make a lot more sense then. Instead, I have to settle with the natural beauty and awe of mere physical reality. I have a few grudges against natural reality at the moment, however, and I imagine I could construct a supernatural reality that would be much more calming.
However, I can't really get past the "why should I believe in your god, when neither of us believe in magic fairies? Or Thor? Or Zeus? Or Invisible Pink Unicorns?"
So that's hard... Except the one, true FSM. May His Holy Noodleness Bless Us!
|Date: 2007/03/01 02:44:52, Link|
FSM speed to you good pastafarian...
I will hunt the evil Dave to the end of this earth (when sufficiently bored)...
I know his MO and his evil cunning -- he has personally banned me uncountable times from countable blogs before.
I would ask for your well-wishing now, but it is unneeded -- the great FSM has proffered me one of His own meat balls to see me through this harrowing experience. It is a gift to talk to the god-ish being, and I will be your prophet (with sufficient objective pay-offs) upon my return.
Potentially the Mortal Son of the Immortal God-Thing
|Date: 2007/03/01 04:01:23, Link|
I posted an extraordinarily instructive counter earlier, but it too seems to have been lost. It seems possible that a non-trivial component of this whole mess is my fault.
Though to be fair, I am at roughly a dozen pending UD posts today without a single acknowledgment. Three of those were, admittedly, rational but critical summaries of ole Dave. The other nine were merely corrections to fundamental factual errors in the original article (of which five managed to not be even remotely trolling or insulting).
It would seem I'm not the diplomat for Science Land. But it does really piss me off that my calculations suggest 1-5 lackey morons get accepted at UD when, on average, 20 actual scientists are banned per post. I'm rather curious as to what the banned scientists had to say.
|Date: 2007/03/01 04:40:07, Link|
Well this is unfortunate:
It seems I tuned in just as the creationists were abiding their elementary school era curfews.. .
I'm sure I'll have pleasant dreams verbally eviscerating stupid speakers, but there is nothing like a living, breathing creationist to mumble truly fascinating idiocies. I like to think I'm a little eccentric, but there is nothing like minor schizophrenia to really put you in your place:
"Hi, as best as I can tell, you have major bleeding wounds in four visible locations -- but my meds make me just sane enough to know that's probably not true -- are you seriously wounded? No, okay. Anyway the weather is nice today."
The more extreme cases want to apply bandages to my head before we have lunch. I don't mind terribly -- maybe I am losing pints of blood from the gash on my forehead that I am unaware of.
(Not really, that's just what I say to my really "interesting" friends... best not to terribly conflict their understanding of reality)
btw, hello creationists. The previous conversation had nothing to do with you whatsoever.
|Date: 2007/03/01 04:57:34, Link|
That is exactly what I want. The only difference we have is that I think it might be better to do that at a new site specifically dedicated to UD mockery.