Dave Scot Strikes Again!
by BilboOver at Uncommon Descent (UD), Salvador Cordova inivited "ERV" (Abbie Smith) to debate her objections to Behe's arguments. He offered her a place where her ideas could be discussed fairly by all parties. Ah! What a sweet, naive young man Sal is. I could have told him at the start that Dave Scot would never let this happen. You see, Sal, Dave's role at UD is to make sure that NOBODY is allowed to present a coherent argument either against ID or against UD's political agenda. If it starts to look like they might, then his job is to ban them. And so he did:
erv can also take her sarcastic mouth elsewhere
Frankly, I was surprised Dave let her get to say as much as she did.
Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Different board, different policies.
I have friends that question the things I do, I question the things my friends sometimes do. Why is it of concern to you who Sal calls friends? Do you think you have a 100% read on Dave Scot because of some set of his actions you happen to disagree with?
Comment by Doug — August 30, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
To be fair, Bilbo, she was rather rude at some points, impatient with the spam filters, and she failed to actually answer the questions posed to her in the latter part of the discussion, merely repeating, parrot-like, the arguments she had already used. Her hostility was only thinly veiled, and she misrepresented Behe's book and misinterpreted his arguments, to the point that one wonders if she really bothered to read it. The conversation was not progressing any.
I don't understand why some people get indignant when people are banned for being rude and disingenuous. Also, can you give me an example of the politically-based banning. Forgive me, for I've only really been involved with comments for a few days, though I've read UD and this blog for some time.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — August 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
But Bilbo, aren't you my friend?
Baylor pretty much destroyed my dreams of studying with Bob Marks and so I had to settle for Johns Hopkins, and that deal was sealed 2 days ago when I got a late acceptance at Hopkins….
Oh well, what happened at UD led to me discovering that one of my former internet foes is a potential professor of mine at Johns Hopkins
[long story of what happened behind the scenes and how this was discovered]
So, from this day forth, I shalll speak lovingly and kindly of every Darwinist I meet on the internet, especially the ones who have power to deny me a grade and a diploma.
But I will not forget my former ID comrades, whenever I give little rabbits a hug, I will think of my ID friends at Telic Thoughts…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Not just DaveScot. Some of us have the privilege of being banned by DaveScot's boss!
Can we share UD banning stories here? Especially from those sympathetic to ID? Mine goes like this.
Commenting on the UD post Why Darwinism is doomed I wrote:
Which generated this response from DaveScot's boss:
Comment by David Heddle — August 30, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Congratulations on your acceptance, Sal. I hope that doesn't mean you won't be posting henceforth? I've enjoyed reading your comments, and your post just now made things sound a bit final.
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Here is the post that got me banned from Uncommon Descent. UD was discussing the published Pollen and Matzke study of the Bacterial Flagellum.
Meanwhile MikeGene was honestly congratulating Nick for getting published. After that, Telic Thoughts became a new home for me. Making this Sept. 12th the first anniversary of my participation here.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
David, your post was rude and insulting, and to the blog in general, not to a particular point or person. You, by implication, accused the writers at UD of being lazy. Your sarcasm lent your post such an overwhelming air of hostility, that I doubt anyone would actually want to speak to such an unpleasant person.
Why can't you be civil? Now, I write a satirical science/politics/philosophy blog, so I don't have a problem with an incisive sense of humor, but UD is not the arena for it. If you're going to use someone else's blog to post your opinion, you could at least be polite to those that are generous enough to provide you with that outlet.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — August 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Thought Provoker, your post implies that ID is a science-stopper, and that, if it should prevail, the pursuit of knowledge has ended. How does that add to the debate? Your position as stated seems to be that you'd rather die than accept proof of ID. Discussion about ID with you becomes, therefore, pointless.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — August 30, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
As an aside - ugh. Site v site posts.
The one thing I can agree with is that I'm glad to see more ID-friendly blogs opening up, some with different takes on the issues at large. It just goes to show that ID is no longer a purely DI thing, if it ever was.
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Charles Foljambe,
Give me a break. Sarcasm may be lowbrow, but it is not the same as being rude. My sarcasm was no "meaner" than that employed countless times, both by DaveScot and his boss. (If you want, I'll find examples. Lots of them. No problem. From both of them. And lots of examples from other UD commenters where the sarcasm is more biting, but aimed at the "materialists" and therefore not resulting in a banning. And also garden-variety mean spirited insults, again aimed at UD detractors, and again no banning.) Do flatulence laden flash videos such as the one Dembski produced mocking Judge Jones rise above my unspeakable level of sarcasm? If not, perhaps they should ban themselves? Or is it your contention that the blog commenters should be held to a higher standard than the blog authors and administrators?
How, praytell, was my post insulting? My, how thin your skin must be.
Comment by David Heddle — August 30, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the disdain from both sides for the other is too great. On the other hand, UD is an ID blog, and Darwinists have plenty of their own, where they are given free rein to state the most hateful insults and derisions they can think of. The people who own and run UD allow dissenters, as long as they're polite and don't mock the very idea of ID as a non-starter, or misrepresent out literature, or literature bluff, etc. In any case, if you were to approach UD with an actual point of contention, or some evidence that, unlike the recent UD posts of ERV, actually stood up to scruitiny, and presented it nicely (y'know, if your conversation didn't contain phrases like, "My, how thin your skin must be!"), I don't think you would be abused for it. This, at least, from what I've seen.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — August 30, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Charles:
That's a good point as far as I'm concerned. UD is too (supply your own criticism) compared to what? The "science" blogs I've read that give evidence of just how demented some people are? A friend of mine (a mathematics professor) had an article published about him on the web in which he cited weak levels of supporting evidence for mainstream theories. A well known blogger (a biologist) took him to task in a blog entry. We visited the blog and posted responses. These kinds of blogs attract syncophants who think it their job to personally attack anyone who disagrees with their blog author heroe. This was no exception. I've grown accustomed to the verbal abuse but one commenter stood out. Although Dembski was not a party to this particular incident he brought his name up and wished something unspeakable on him and his autistic child. The attack was so far beyond the pale that I was taken aback and that takes some doing. What bothered me most though was the reaction of the blogger and his retinue. It was a non-reaction. Although they had endless energy to attack my math professor friend they could not summon a rebuke to the vile commenter. I remember incidents like this when UD is criticized.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
For the reader's benefit, since it wasn't in the opening post, here is a link to the ongoing drama: ERV's challenge to Michael Behe.
I have gone to ERV's website and argued my case in order to clear my name and that of Michael Behe. Go to Another Savage Blow to my Behe Critique.
I believe Ms. Smith was on her good behavior at UD, at least relative to her own weblog which she offers her commentary:
It's not my place to criticize my bosses publicly, nor my school, nor my professors — the only comment I will offer is I thank the Lord for all the things in my life and the people in my life.
I thus will prefer not to comment on moderation decisions but rather the issue at hand regarding Michael Behe's work.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Only an IDiot would think this is bad form.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Isn't that sweet of ERV, she refers to UD participants as rabbits!
That should put a smile on Mike Gene's face.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
As a regular reader of UD I was a little surprised by Dave's actions myself.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 30, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Let ERV come over here and make her case. It will be an interesting discussion, I should think.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 30, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
ERV sounded familiar. Then I recalled this exchange. I'm not at all certain Dave was wrong in his assessment. It accords with my experience.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
*shock*
This was totally uncalled for, David.
Comment by Lurker — August 30, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 12:07 am
Remember, if you are Darwinist and losing a debate at UD, just act real snotty. Say things that will impress your howler monkey buddies over at Panda's Thumb. You are guaranteed to get banned. That way, instead of looking like an idiot you can go back over to PT for a round of high fives and trash talk about how they couldn't handle you at UD.
Comment by Jehu — August 31, 2007 @ 12:07 am
August 31st, 2007 at 12:58 am
The debate has continued. It turns out that DaveScot's decision has forced the discussion to ERV's website where ERV cannot use the "I was banned" excuse for the outcome of the discussion.
There have been more developments, and I think the reader will get the gist of what's happening: Post 104 at UD for the latest.
Because the debate moved from UD to ERV, the terms of the discussion are more than fair for ERV. There are no excuses now.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2007 @ 12:58 am
August 31st, 2007 at 2:12 am
The one thing I have noticed since moving to N America is how thin people's skins are when an opponent is launching a reply, but how their raisins swell to prunes when they are feeding off an echo chamber.
UD dishes it out in spades and plays cowardly moderating games in return. The DI site doesn't even allow replies or discussion. Pharyngula dis-emvowels folk but usually to repeat offenders and Dawkin's site seems to publish all povs as does this site.
You'll always get the childish laffing a the poop smear on the wall but to progress requires a little more than an echo chamber.
It appears to me, a humble foreigner, that discourse here is similar to footie back home, choose your colours and fight for it regardless of the facts. Except that in footie it only results in a few bruises and some great stories, here it affects a lot more from politics to social policy and is scary.
Dogma of any sort is bollocks and sticking to something because you are afraid of the alternative even in the face of evidence is wrong.
If you need to throw pooh you belong in a zoo. If you need to characterise opponents as rude to disarm their arguments then you are a pooh thrower. Get a thicker skin and listen to the tirade because underneath the invective might be a salient point. A lot of the great movers in history have been arrogant and considered rude, but their message has been still sound.
Comment by DaveC — August 31, 2007 @ 2:12 am
August 31st, 2007 at 3:03 am
Or it might be a huge waste of time. Not every blog has a goal of being a debate forum. It has been my observation that any forum or blog without some kind of moderation quickly falls to the lowest common denominator trash talk and is not worth my time. I have no idea why people get so offended if they are not allowed to post whatever they want on somebody else's blog. Get your own blog! TT strikes a great balance in my opinion. But I don't fault others who have a different idea of the tone they want on their blog.
Comment by Jehu — August 31, 2007 @ 3:03 am
August 31st, 2007 at 3:23 am
I mostly see UD as a blog first and foremost for people who are pro-ID - I don't expect them to allow equal time to critics, even in their comments. That said, I've seen some long conversations between ID proponents and certain critics take place there; I think the key is to resist all urges to be snarky, even if other comments may have that tone.
But I do rather like TT. The world could use more ID-friendly blogs, period, with a variety of points of view and tacts.
By the way - I don't believe the 'Some of history's greatest movers have been arrogant, rude people' line. Despots, perhaps. But for the most part, when any jerk had something worthwhile to say, it was heard because a more level-headed listener communicated their views. If a great mind is obnoxious, let them speak through a translator.
Comment by nullasalus — August 31, 2007 @ 3:23 am
August 31st, 2007 at 8:02 am
Jehu:
Good strategy.:mrgreen:
You're right. Such blogs become worthless. Those with something worthwhile to say are not going to waste their time trash talking.
Comment by Bradford — August 31, 2007 @ 8:02 am
August 31st, 2007 at 8:29 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Telic Thoughts is well known for its openness.
There are other Blogs that are open too and manage to carry on interesting discussions.
Each has its unique tone based on the general opinions of the frequent commentors.
I like the tone of Telic Thought and while there is always room for improvement, it is obvious MikeGene is earnestly stiving to make this blog better.
I get bored in a place where everyone agrees with me.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2007 @ 8:29 am
August 31st, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hi Sal,
I'm a BlueJay, class of '85. I hope you take some science courses, and keep your mind open; there are some brilliant people there. Plus the men's lacrosse team will be defending their latest national championship next season. Go Jays!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 31, 2007 @ 11:55 am
August 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I just went and read the latest posts and comments at erv's website. There's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I'm completely baffled by the back and forth between Mr. Cordova and erv.
First of all, Mr. Cordova's question ("Is it your premise that Vpu pre-existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?") seems incoherent. HIV probably evolved as a result of the infection of humans by an SIV variant, so it doesn't make much sense to ask about genes in HIV prior to that event. Assuming that he meant to ask whether an ancestral VPU gene existed in SIV prior to the divergence of SIVcpz and HIV, then erv answered that question (YES!) in her very first post.
The ongoing argument resembles nothing so much as a toxic parody of a hostile court battle. Why Cordova keeps demanding a yes or no answer to a question that was already answered is unclear to me. I'm not sure if he just doesn't understand the original post, or if he thinks there is some rhetorical advantage in forcing erv to answer the question in the format he desires.
Why erv doesn't just answer "yes" is equally unclear to me. I suspect, but am not sure, she thinks that since she has already answered it, the repitition is an attempt at rhetorical dominance rather than an honest inquiry
It now seems that either Mr. Cordova will have to accept that his question was answered, but he isn't going to force the exact wording that he wants, or erv will need to answer Cordova's question in the words he wants to hear and then move on to ask why he thinks it is relevant. Stupid dominance games.
Comment by Nick — August 31, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Nick,
I appreciate your comment, but the question makes sense to her because she is well aware of the next line of argumentation and thus she has no intention of budging.
The fact there are biochemical differences today does not negate the fact HIV inherited a functioning Vpu gene. She full well knows even if the Vpu has evolved since entry into humans, two major features in it's functioning have been retained. And thus her claim at PandasThumb is demonstratably false that these were novel features.
She had upheld these features as novel. They really aren't and she knows it.
I also caught here equivocation on HIV-2. Did you see it?
She would prefer that it be perceived like a dominance game rather than it possibly being that she erred.
If she says:
1. YES, but it's irrelevant
I'll challenge that successfully
2. NO
I'll challenge that successfully
Tell you what, Bradford seems knowledgeable about these things, ask him if VPU existed in HIV before entry into humans:
Answer: YES
Then ask, what functions were likely imported with this:
1. C4 Degradation
2. viral release regulation
3. ion channel capability ( still a bit unsure on this one, but not essential)
You'll see that when these conclusions are drawn, her position will be demonstrated fallacious.
If you doubt me, dialogue with her yourself. Talk with the experts at PT who will discuss it objectively.
I have shown my willingness to dialogue with you. I don't think you'll get a straight answer from her.
If she says, the question is irrelevant, you can ask, "whether irrelevant or not, is it true that the Vpu gene in HIV-1 cannot be regarded as a novel development since introduction into humans, thus cannot be used as a counter example to Behe's claims."
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Seriously, Sal. Why are you wasting your time with physics? You really ought to get into biology. I know it would be pretty cool to prove a young earth, but wouldn't you be doing mankind a far greater service by curing all sorts of heretofore incurable diseases by the groundbreaking application of the ID paradigm?
Comment by leo_s — August 31, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Salvador Cordova:
If she says:
1. YES, but it's irrelevant
I'll challenge that successfully
2. NO
I'll challenge that successfully
So, why don't you just move onto those lines of argumentation instead of repeating the same question over and over? If you have responses to both possible answers, then you don't really need her to answer; just lay out both arguments. It's crystal clear to me that she said "Yes" in her very first post, so why don't you quote that and move onto the rest of your argument? Are you asking for a yes or no answer because you honestly don't know how she will answer? Or do you think that there is some rhetorical advantage to getting her to answer again? Either way, it's not getting you any closer to making your point.
Tell you what, Bradford seems knowledgeable about these things, ask him if VPU existed in HIV before entry into humans:
Why should I ask Bradford? I already know the answer. Not being a student of HIV, I know the answer only because erv answered it in her first post: "Vpu is only found in one group– Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants"”including HIV-1.
So again, I'm baffled. Why do you keep asking the same, already answered, question as a prelude to your argument. Why don't you just move on and make your argument?
Comment by Nick — August 31, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I love the subject matter. I do not consider it a waste.
I already did, Go here:
Comment 84
I'm merely rubbing it in now, and everyone (well almost everyone) knows it.
The confrontation now is to get a confession out of Ms. Smith that she made a mistake. Of course that will never happen, and she'll stonewall.
What you see developing of late is me just rubbing it in for the sake of the cause. Ms. Smith, rather than admitting an error, is obliging in allowing this to drag on and to embarrass her side as this plays out. She is allowing herself to be humiliated. Look at how some of her own are objecting!
The reason I suggested you ask someone else is that I don't want you to have to take my word for it that there is good evidence functionality was inherited and not novel. This would destroy ERV's argument, and at the very least cast doubt on its veracity.
The debate over Mike Behe's work and HIV was mostly concluded 2 days ago just before DaveScot dropped the axe. The rest is for show, and we've gotten a couple days mileage and a bit of fun at ERV's expense. Try not to take the back and forth of the last two days too seriously. I certainly don't.
The point of asking this simple empirical and innocuous question:
was to give her an opportunity to be herself, to make herself look like screaming whining loser rather than a dispassionate objective scholar. She seemed to oblige this rather cynical manipulation, and played to our expectations exactly.
In contrast, I don't represent myself as a scholar of any sort, I'm just an average scoundrelly dumb creationist.
But personalities aside, and questions of my integrity aside, the question of what the facts say at the end of the day remains.
Was Michael Behe was right?
I say, YES.
regards,
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2007 @ 5:28 pm