Comments Nixed by Uncommon Descent
by BilboWell, it's happened again. Dave Scot had a post on the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, this is seen as a tragedy of near cataclysmic proportions by Dave. Must be the taxoplasma taking effect. So I tried posting a comment of my own. It never showed up. This is about the fourth time for me. I should have made a copy of it. It went something like this:
"Dave doesn't believe in Free Speech for anyone who disagrees with him, so this comment will probably be deleted. But I believe that the Supreme Court was merely ruling on whether or not the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And it is certainly within the jurisdiction of the Court to make such a ruling."
So, since no doubt most people who disagree with Dave Scot or others at Uncommon Descent have suffered similar fates, I thought I would create a special place where they can post what they wanted to say at UD. So as long as there is no foul or obscene language, feel free to paste your comments here. Then at least someone will know what it is you wanted to say, beside Dave Scot.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
Gee, I've never actually tried to post anything to UD, Bilbo. Registered a year or more ago, but have no idea what name or pw I used. It's a tight clique of the like-minded, and if that's what they want to be it's fine with me. Besides, who can read the light gray text anyway?
But to your topic, of course the court has the power to enforce greenhouse emissions! I think the way that works is Congress passes laws or administrative agencies write regulations, and all that goes into "The Books." You know, things like auto emissions standards, requiring scrubbers to be installed in coal plant stacks, efforts to subsidize alternative non-CO2 resources, etc.
The administration the Supreme Court appointed in the first place decided it can ignore all the laws and regulations with impunity, as if they never existed. The subversion of the Justice Department is a symptom of this, since it allows investigators and prosecutors to ignore blatant violations of law and regulations as a matter of policy, and to fire prosecutors who actually try to enforce them. It's just one more symptom of what can go wrong when you turn a democratic republic into a totalitarian state, but forget to do the paperwork required by coups and revolutions. Eventually those who still labor under the misapprehension that it's a democratic republic will complain.
This is know as "playing politics with reality." It can work only so long as reality doesn't get in the way. Fact is, the world is warming fast and we've got to get down to the hard business of doing what we can do about it. Even though I suspect the earth would be warming (maybe not as fast) without our air pollution, and I do NOT think we should trust overeager scientists to "solve" the problem (they've some really awful suggestions!), we can clean up our act. We should do so for lots of very good reasons, perhaps the least of which is global warming.
We should get busy rearranging our priorities and policies to DEAL WITH reality. We no longer live in a world where ships are the only way to get things from here to there. Thus there's no good reason to concentrate the vast majority of our population in low-lying wetlands on coasts or in river flood plains. And instead of just screwing the lower classes who get wiped out by hurricanes and rising shorelines [see: Katrina], we should be moving the entire infrastructure inland and uphill.
Look at the projection maps for where the water's going to be after all the ice melts, and draw those lines in reality. Keep port facilities (transfer to rail stuff), but move the population and their cities. Port workers can be housed properly (and safely) above the high water mark, and evacuated when hurricanes threaten. We do that for offshore drilling, there's no reason we can't do that with port facilities. PEOPLE move by air and automobile and trains these days. Those hubs can be well inland.
This would designate ample wetlands and barrier sands, thus help rectify some of our water and wildlife issues. Let folks vacation at the beach at their own risk – but build the hotels on higher ground, hurricane-proof. Move the agricultural base according to rainfall projections, go ahead and use the creeping climate zones to our advantage.
Because quite honestly, the water's rising. If you just stand there instead of move to higher ground, the world probably won't miss your genius. GW deniers can't win this one. They can, however, drown.
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2007 @ 11:54 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Recent research has demonstrated that there has been more solar activity in the last 100 years than the previous 1000.
Over the last 100 years the temperature on earth has gone up 1 degree.
Human created CO2 equals 1/3 of 1% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yet people like to believe that it is the increase in CO2 and not the sun that caused the 1 degree shift.
So now the Supreme Court has determined that greenhouse gases are a polutant. 95% of which is water vapor. Brilliant, water vapor is now polution.
Comment by Jehu — April 3, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Hi Bilbo,
DaveScot doesn't delete all posts that are in disagreeing with his views.
To some extent I like the atmosphere at UD over TT.
Many times the conversations here just go on and on and on and on. Insults get tossed back and forth and comments seem to side-track the actual article.
Comment by Doug — April 3, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Comment by macht — April 3, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hi Bilbo,
fyi, Your post now shows in DS's blog (comment #7)
Comment by Rob R. — April 3, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Edit?
I know I've seen people say there is one (with a 30min window iirc) but I'm not seeing it. Anyway I meant to end the blockquote after "~Bilbo"
Apologies,
-Rob
Comment by Rob R. — April 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Rob, look to the right of the date and time.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Bradford, I got Comment by Rob R. "” April 3, 2007 @ 3:13 pm and that's it. The time is clickable but only links to my post.
Comment by Rob R. — April 3, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
fyi,
That goes for the time/date stamp at the top of my entry aswell (except that the whole line is clickable but still only links to my post.)
Perhaps an issue on my end?
Comment by Rob R. — April 3, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Well, it seems this post of mine has at least made it possible for me to post comments at UD, and they appear immediately. So if anyone else is having problems, post your comments here. Maybe it'll help you have better luck over there.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Jehu said
I think you are lying. Please give a reference to a peer-reviewed paper supporting this.
Water vapour is indeed the 'most important' greenhouse gas. However, water molecules stay in the atmosphere for an average of a few days and the amount quickly equilibrates. Molecules of CO2, on the other hand, stay in the atmosphere for very much longer and show much less response to the physical conditions, taking possibly 100,000 years to equilibrate. A small amount of additional CO2 increases the temperature a little, which increases the water vapour, which increases the temperature, which increases . . . until a new equilibrium is reached. That is why CO2 is considered a driving variable whereas the water vapour is considered as a response.
But I suspect you knew this all along.
Comment by Richard Simons — April 3, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Whoah!!! I just went back to UD, to see if anybody responded to my latest comment and, "Hey! Presto!" Both my comments are gone. So is everything else, after comment #6. I guess I really pissed Dave off, this time. He sure showed me who's got the power.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Oh yes, Dave sure showed me who's in charge. I just made the comment over there, "I guess it takes an ass to know an ass, Dave." Think he'll post it?
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
BTW, Dave. If you ever want to post anything over here, beginning with, "I bet Bilbo will delete this, because disagreement isn't tolerated at TT," guess what. Disagreement is not only tolerated here, it is appreciated here. Even when fellow asses such as yourself are the contributors.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Maybe they can rename the blog "no dissent" instead of Uncommon Descent?
Comment by mcromer — April 3, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 1:53 am
LOL! Thou sayest.
Comment by obrienr — April 4, 2007 @ 1:53 am
April 4th, 2007 at 2:52 am
So if anyone else is having problems, post your comments here. Maybe it'll help you have better luck over there.
Comment by onething — April 4, 2007 @ 2:52 am
April 4th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Bilbo,
If I were in Dave's shoes, I'd delete posts which were as insulting as some of those you've posted here in this thread regarding Dave. "I guess it takes an ass to know an ass" "Dave doesn't believe in Free Speech for anyone who disagrees with him,…" "Even when fellow asses such as yourself are the contributors" Bad form, bad taste.
Anyway, I'm not all that familiar with Dave and his moderating practices and habits, so I can't say if he has any totalitarian tendencies in that regard. But I do know that deleting posts which contain comments as insulting and inflammatory as the comments of yours I quoted above would in no way suggest a moderator with iron fingers.
Comment by Douglas — April 4, 2007 @ 4:35 am
April 4th, 2007 at 5:22 am
DaveScot suffers from emotional incontinence. He loses control and lashes out when he encounters intelligent opposition, particularly when he is shown to be wrong. He's much like stunney in that regard.
I suspect that banning is sort of a safety valve for Dave. True, it makes him look cowardly, and it brings UD into disrepute, even among ID supporters. But it saves Dave from having his arguments publicly trounced, and so it may be a worthwhile tradeoff for him.
To see what I mean, look at the following collection of quotes from Dave. These were all posted by Dave in one morning, between 7 am and noon, in December of 2005, back when I used to comment at UD. This was before Dave had the ability to ban people. You can sense his impotent rage:
As bad as Dave still is, you don't see nearly as much vituperation from him now versus before his finger was on the banning button. It's probably easier for him to ban someone and then lie to himself about his motivation than it is to ignore the fact that he's getting pounded, over and over, in argument.
Comment by keiths — April 4, 2007 @ 5:22 am
April 4th, 2007 at 5:33 am
This flame war and the personal attacks that go with it are unworthy of Telic Thoughts.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2007 @ 5:33 am
April 4th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Bradford,
Telic Thoughts deserves full credit for its policy of non-censorship. I particularly appreciate it after my experience at Uncommon Descent.
That said, TT cannot claim the high ground with regard to personal attacks, as a perusal of contributors' posts and comments on Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will attest.
Comment by keiths — April 4, 2007 @ 5:57 am
April 4th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Keiths:
The posts I've read on Dawkins and Harris take them to task for the statements they have made. You have a point with regard to some comments though. In any case I have not seen the moronic, ass… type comments leveled in debates that center on those two. At some point a line should be drawn.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2007 @ 6:49 am
April 4th, 2007 at 7:28 am
I've read and occasionally posted at both blogs. I understand Dave's seeming knee jerk reaction to certain personality types and agree he many times behaves in a way which would get him banned by his own standards. My own take is that he will usually ban those comments containing enough snark to cause his banning reflex to kick in.
I think UD gets an unfair rap for attempting to maintain stricter order within the comments of the blog and also think Dave Scot gets an unfair rap as someone who 'doesn't believe in free speech'. That's just rubbish and an intellectually indefensible slur. Words mean things. Internet blogs aren't the government and his itchy banning finger does not, as this thread proves, have any effect of anyone's ability to express themselves.
I also align myself with Bradford's 5:33 AM comments. This is childish.
Comment by todd — April 4, 2007 @ 7:28 am
April 4th, 2007 at 8:54 am
todd wrote:
Yes, Dave particularly dislikes this personality type: people who a) politely disagree with him, and b) back up their positions with evidence and reasoned argument. I can show you example after example of this "type" being banned from Uncommon Descent.
Obviously, and thankfully, Dave's powers are limited to Uncommon Descent. But he certainly doesn't believe in free speech (or any approximation thereof) within that tiny fiefdom.
Comment by keiths — April 4, 2007 @ 8:54 am
April 4th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I agree with Bradford.
And Bilbo, I'd be careful of coming off as a "poser" who's trying to prove a point (-> I'm not in bed with the conservative movement of mainstream ID).
That's fine. I'm not either. I can't stand the conservative aspect of the ID movement. But that's not the point. The point is that in several of your posts you come off as a politician who's trying to "look" a certain way.
Comment by bipod — April 4, 2007 @ 9:12 am
April 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Keiths, it's your arrogant crap like this that make TT a groan-inducing experiment. Are you that unable to keep your emotions in check? Please, man….
Comment by Doug — April 4, 2007 @ 9:22 am
April 4th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Gee… I thought Bilbo's complaint had something to do with UD's (or just Dave's) opinions about global warming, and his desire not to tolerate dissenting opinions about it. But since I can't even SEE what's there (light gray on white is literally unreadable and I'm not going to copy-paste it into a WP program just to turn the print black), it's easy for me to not even think about what's over there.
Back when ARN launched their "Observatory" class (section where only 'certain' posters were allowed) I got a little bent by the total absence of any EAM proponent. Sure, Mike Turner wasn't a good choice even though the model is his, because he too easily loses all patience with critics. I'd be a bad choice for the same reason, though my tolerance level is higher than Mike's. But Berthajane would have been an excellent choice. But nope, EAM was left out entirely.
Then it turned out that the elites didn't bother with it either, since there was nothing to talk about and no one to talk to. Months go by without a peep, I don't think they've made ID any more acceptable to the DD masses. ISCID keeps a firm rein on discussions as well, for their specific purpose of discussing aspects of ID in a scientific/experimental framework. Serious discussions of the science don't need distraction from the II brigades or the professional Pandas.
I wouldn't worry about Scot or UD, Bilbo. If they don't want to deal with opposing positions they don't have to. It doesn't make opposing positions go away, it just makes the task of copy-pasting material into a WP so it can be read at all less of a fruitless exercise. For them. No biggie. There's always TT!
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 9:48 am
April 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Just for the record, I became rather disillusioned with UD a good while ago for these sorts of reasons. Telic Thoughts is fantastic – even in threads like this there is actual conversation going on.
Heck, I even like having Keiths around…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 4, 2007 @ 9:49 am
April 4th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Perhaps I have been in bad form. The fact that at least three previous comments I tried making at UD — which were not in bad form, but disagreed with Dave — never showed up, plus knowing that others experienced the same fate, put me in bad form. And yes, I occasionally do try to make sure that people know that I am politically liberal. I have to. Too many ID proponents make their politcal conservatism part of their ID message, as if there is some sort of logical connection.
But yes, I don't think Dave Scot believes in free speech for those who disagree with him. Deleting my comments because I said as much were an excuse to delete comments that disagreed with his.
And when one of the leading blogs on ID allows someone like Dave to moderate, it makes all other ID proponents look bad. So there is a need to criticize and distance ourselves from UD. Perhaps I haven't done it in the most appropriate fashion, but it needs to be done.
Comment by Bilbo — April 4, 2007 @ 10:26 am
April 4th, 2007 at 10:35 am
And yes, I occasionally do try to make sure that people know that I am politically liberal.
Not a problem. I think that about 2/3 of us at TelicThoughts are so you're in good company;-) And I think that it's ok to voice your irritation at UD policies. Let's jut be careful, as posters, not to turn TT into a political flame-war forum.
Comment by bipod — April 4, 2007 @ 10:35 am
April 4th, 2007 at 10:41 am
bipod:
Yes, I agree. That's why I only had one post on Global Warming, and only to argue that there was no logical connection between it and ID. And that's why I will only have one post allowing people to post comments that were deleted at UD. And I promise not to make anymore insulting comments about Dave Scot at TT.
Comment by Bilbo — April 4, 2007 @ 10:41 am
April 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am
The thing to remember about UD is that it is not intended to be a forum for debate. It is centre for distributing news and views to the ID community and something of a rallying point for that community. This isn't a criticism. I can't find it now – but at one stage Dembski made this quite explicit and if he wants to run a blog for this purpose that's his business.
To be honest Panda's Thumb plays much the same role, although I don't think it is intentional in that case. It is interesting how often blogs that are based round contentious issues become more like party conferences than debates. TT has done well to avoid that.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 4, 2007 @ 11:01 am
April 4th, 2007 at 11:11 am
UD is a rah-rah party with a bouncer (DaveScot). If your not invited, you won't be able to crash the party for long.
Comment by bj — April 4, 2007 @ 11:11 am
April 4th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Doug wrote:
Doug,
Give me a break. I'm arrogant for pointing out that DaveScot and stunney have a tendency to lash out? Take a look at this and this and tell me I've misread them.
Comment by keiths — April 4, 2007 @ 11:19 am
April 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
keiths,
Your complaint is not rational. You cannot have open policy without the occasional outbursts of ad hominems (regrettably). It is obvious to just about everyone, that main contributors here at TT, do not start and do not encourage personal attacks.
Comment by inunison — April 4, 2007 @ 11:47 am
April 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
inunison,
You cut off the quote right before the relevant part. I wrote:
I'm holding TT contributors responsible for their own posts and comments, not those of visitors.
Comment by keiths — April 4, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
keiths, frustration is a perennial danger of engaging in ideological debates. As I mentioned, I'm someone known to let frustration get the better of me at times, and this is true of many others as well. Including you.
It can actually be good therapy to learn where one's buttons are, and observe how others can manage to push them again and again. That way (and I'm better than I used to be!) you can learn something about yourself and also learn how best to deal with it. Too much bile isn't good for anybody, and bile never settled any ideological issue.
For a semi-humorous example, PZ's got a post up today blaming his arrogance on creationist's arrogance. As if that's somehow intelligent or reasonable or 'scientific' or even adult behavior. He targets a single apologist (the least 'threaty' one he could think of). Self-justification of personal arrogance and alpha ape behavior, a badly timed apologetic for several reasons related to a separate ScienceBlog issue…
Termed Unprotected Speech in the topside lede of ScienceBlog's main page, the kerfluffle has to do with some extremely nasty alpha male behaviors – including rape and death threats that have been turned over to police and FBI – against tech writer Kathy Sierra that have caused her to cancel a keynote and presentations at ETech in San Diego, and made her a virtual prisoner in her own home.
I'll be darned if I can figure out what Sierra did to draw the bottom feeders, but this isn't the first time things in the blogosphere have gotten way out of hand. When Catholic League president William Donohue targeted a couple of anti-religious bloggers the Edwards campaign had hired, they got rape and death threats on their blogs too. So it's not like the bad behavior is all coming from one side of the aisle.
We have laws against hate speech that descends to the level of physical threat or incitement to violence. I'm sure in any of these cases investigators could easily trace the offenders through their ISPs and confront them directly. In which case they're bound to do a lot of tap-dancing self-justifications (a lot like those we see so often from PZ) that cannot really excuse anything.
"Oh, I didn't mean I'd really rape and kill her" is NOT a legal defense against a threat to do that very thing.
"Oh, I didn't think any of my starry-eyed acolytes would actually DO what I said needed to be done…" will absolve no one from responsibility for a crime.
So far I haven't heard about anyone actually going to jail for issuing threats in cyberspace, so I'm anxiously awaiting some gung-ho prosecutor to throw a real book at these jerks. It needs to be done, and I won't apologize for saying that if it ever happens. There are quite a few loudmouths in these Dueling Metaphysics wars who are pushing the envelope on a constant basis. And it's not at all untoward to comment about that situation.
It's fine to express frustration. It's not okay to take an entire blog into the gutter if being in the gutter isn't where the blog wants to be. I don't think either stunney's or Bilbo's expressed frustration rise to the level of hate speech or personal threat, though it can be a signal that it's time to take a breather. We'll survive just fine. §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Liberals, eh? Boy, if I was moderator here, I'd ban the lot of you.
Comment by Douglas — April 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Did someone say personal attacks? Look, we try, but we can't quite keep up with the crew at the Pandas Thumb. Check out some of the titles for their entries:
And that's just a sample.
Those clever critics – they've taken name-calling to a whole new level (the 6th grade level, that is). I'm not sure we can fill those little shoes.
Comment by MikeGene — April 4, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I have learned that to remain at UD, one must refrain from sparking too much confrontation. One can always start a new weblog to air views which might not endear oneself to the powers that be at UD. But while I'm there, I will respect the themes that managment focuses on. My dissent will either remain private, or aired elsewhere like at this website under construction: http://www.YoungCosmos.com
For example, Bill Dembski, DaveScot, and Denyse O'leary are amenable to common ancestry, wherease I reject it. I have decided it's not worth fighting over at UD….
DaveScot has volunteered his time to be admin of UD and worked very hard at ensuring an ever increasing flow of web traffic. Were it not for the first generation of UDers, even if some were mischief makers like me, there would be no UD today. The first generation (Patrick, DaveScott, Crandaddy, PaV, Scott, Red, Gil Dogen, myself) kept the volunteer weblog alive until the next generation of Denyse O'leary, Barry Arrington, DA Cook, Lee Bowman, Theodosius, idnet.au, Granville Sewell, Galapogos Finch, The Scubaredneck, and several others currently and in the future.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 4, 2007 @ 6:29 pm