The Apology Thread
by BilboI don't know if it's appropriate for me to post a thread like this, but my conscience has been bothering me for a while now, and I need to apologize. And since what I did wrong was on this blog, I thought I better make my apology public.
I want to aplogize to Jack T. I lost my temper, and accused you of things that I had no right to accuse you of. There was no excuse for it. If you still read this blog, I offer my sincere apologies for doing so, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
And though it's long overdue, I also want to apologize to Mike Gene for not believing him when he said that he had written his book. Mike, you've been around too long, and written too much about ID at such a high intellectual level, and endured with patience all the criticism that you have received, that you didn't deserve it from someone who claims to be on the same side. My only excuse is that in the world of pseudonymity, paranoid people like I am often jump to irrational suspicions.
I offer you my sincere apologies, also. And thank you for writing such an excellent book.
Comment by Bilbo — May 18, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
May 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The need for self criticalitiy cannot be ignored; doubt is found oscillating with promise. I stipulate that this is a primal oscillation, otherwise life could feel not its contrivances that are not reducible to chance and necessity: enter design. If only the Darwinists could oscillate this freely! Nevertheless, the oscillation is the innate calling card of Trinitarian expression.
Comment by Stephen — May 18, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Well done, Bilbo.
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 12:46 am
May 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
JackT wasn't beating around the bush, that's for sure. His last posts were challenging Mike directly. His very last one embarrassed Joy (though deservedly so). That sort of behavior leads to banning at Telic Thoughts. So my guess, JackT was banned.
Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts,
http://www.antievolution.org/c...
in which he illustrates baldfaced unethical behavior by Nelson Alonso, the administrator of this site. In particular, Nelson apologized for his own mistakes at antievolution.org but would not fess up to them on this forum. I congratulate you, Bilbo, for at least having more courage than Nelson.
Comment by anon9 — May 19, 2008 @ 1:59 am
May 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I re-read some of Jack's "challenging" comments and was not all that impressed. An analogy was made comparing cells to technology and a pedantic "challenge" resulted. Rock had posted a link to a paper suggesting such an analogy. The paper was interesting and worthy of discussion. Pedantic haggling over analogies is pedestrian- expected but not very challenging.
Incidentally mistakes alluded to by anon9 involved technical glitches namely, a temporary disablement of the memory hole option. The response of some commenters was no mistake at all. Polite requests to not editorialize about the blogging policies of particular TTers were ignored in favor of reintroducing comments already deemed irrelevant. It became a matter of who was running the show.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 9:16 am
May 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Strangely, I have just been banned from ARN. Thankfully Telic Thoughts will accept a some confrontation. I have no idea what I did to annoy the mods over there.
Comment by The Pixie — May 19, 2008 @ 9:52 am
May 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
If I may chime in, I learned long ago (from my mentor, Will Provine) that one has two responsibilities when considering the kinds of questions posed here: never to attack the person making assertions with which one disagrees, and always to attack their assertions, with all the evidence and vigor at one's disposal. This, to me, is the primary ethic of the academy: we cherish those with whom we disagree, for in our disagreement we both come to clarity about our own attitudes, beliefs, positions, and understanding.
This is precisely why Will and I always invite people with whom we disagree to make presentations and stand for questions in our evolution courses at Cornell. In many cases our students become even more confirmed in their opposition to the ideas presented by such presenters, as a result of formulating their own telling questions and following up on the answers. And, of course, sometimes the presenters surprise us all, and our own positions must be modified as a result.
Hence, my deep regard for the folks here (and my general disdain for the average commentators at both Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb). May a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, eh?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — May 19, 2008 @ 10:25 am
May 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Thank you Allen,
It's very refreshing to read your perspective. You have an attitude that's quite rare on the internet.
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 10:43 am
May 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Here's the thread with the "direct challenge." JackT disrespectfully derails the thread by making me the subject of conversation. The wording of his rapid-fire questions is disrespectful. Everyone agrees he is being disrespectful, but JackT lies and says he is not. JackT then disrespectfully ignores my polite questions (pretending he doesn't know what they are) and taunts me into answering his questions after I point out I am limited by time. When I give in and deprive myself of a little sleep one night in order to provide polite answers in good faith, JackT doesn't even have the basic human decency to acknowledge the answers and thank me for my time. So, anon9, since when does the behavior of a troll constitute a direct challenge? JackT owes me an apology.
JackT then decided to harass Joy by trying to get her to cite some court case that would, if I recall correctly, get her to disclose her real-world identity. Nevertheless, that harassment was instructive because it occurred AFTER I posted my answers to JackT's disrespectful questions, showing that he freely chose to ignore them and disrespect me further. I even replied to JackT in the thread where he was bothering Joy, drawing his attention to the thread he abruptly abandoned. He failed to acknowledge me even then.
So now the critic floats some innuendo designed to smear this blog and make it look like poor ol' JackT was banned because he dared to ask direct questions. As far as I know, JackT has not been banned. I certainly don't want to see him banned; I want him here so he can answer my questions and apologize for his behavior.
So now the critic insults other critics who post here. I guess he is trying to imply they are not "direct" and "confrontational" enough to get banned . Sorry troll, but the few critics who have been banned have been banned because they were trying to cause trouble and create an environment that would discourage other voices from participating.
Since anon9 joined TT just to smear us and float innuendo, anon9 owes me and Telic Thoughts an apology.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 11:12 am
May 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Allen, today…
And, a couple of weeks ago…
Nice!
Comment by chunkdz — May 19, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Since this is an apology thread, I would like to apologize to Bilbo for thinking he has big feet.
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Am I safe thinking he has hairy feet (or toes at least)?
Comment by The Pixie — May 19, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Mike:
Thanks for the link to refresh my memory, Mike. Even though the JackT sockpuppet was fairly recent, I just don't devote any neurons to the disposable names as they come and go.
Per the puppet's demands for details, that sort of thing is very easily ignored. No sane person is going to show up at the Courthouse to spend serious time and money going through a stack of overflowing file-boxes just to confirm a finding of fact entered at some point in a multi-week medical malpractice trial that took place more than 9 years ago, for an incident that occurred in 1992.
I don't care if intertube trolls know my 'real' name, but they've no "need to know" so I don't advertise it. I am not someone they can threaten, blackmail, steal from or in any way harm with that knowledge. Strange obsessions aren't a big concern – I have the right to protect myself, my loved ones and my property from crazy people, and the skills and tools to do so. Inter-trolls are entirely dismissible phantoms, nothing like drunken rednecks in hunting season.
nobody:
Yeah, but those hairy toes are so, like, EWWWWW!
Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Puppet owes me an apology.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
My two cents on sock puppets. Ban them immediately. Never respond to them. Never acknowledge them. Never even read their posts, once you recognize their game. Here's the thing I learned many years ago: They are starved for attention. They will say almost anything to get 15 seconds of attention.
If you respond – they win. If you ignore them – you win.
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Since the puppet wants to talk about banning, I publicly vote that the puppet be banned. If anyone wants to defend the puppet, now is the time to speak up.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hey, whatever happened to the genius, JackT?
He probably got banned because his direct questions were too much for Mike and Joy to handle.
That figures, as this IDiot blog bans all the tough critics and only allows the mealy-mouthed ones to stay.
Hey, you guys want to hear about when I was banned?
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
LOL. Mike, I see you received the envelope full of action shots of sockpuppets discussing TT.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I'd like to apologize for generally lowering the threshold of sophistication around here. It seems I simply can't resist swinging at those 15 mph softballs any more than a hyena can resist a gimpy wildebeest.
I think I'll follow Mike's suggestion and take the summer off. See you on the beach!
Comment by chunkdz — May 19, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Followed the antievolution link and read the posts over there. WOW. That's some pretty harsh stuff.
Keiths is pretty much the same.
*quick question – was Keiths and valerie the same person over here? I thought they were, Zach seems to think otherwise*
But olegt really surprised me. He's a professor and he's calling people tards?
It's fun to read the tone of his comments here and then to read them over there.
Comment by Doug — May 19, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Mike,
You can criticize JackT's tone, but the substance of his question was quite serious. Any scientist who is worth his salt ought to sit down once in a while and ask himself the question Where do I see myself in ten years? And it seems like you did take those questions seriously answering them one by one. After that all this posturing seems a bit misplaced.
Comment by olegt — May 19, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Doug:
Same computer.
You can let it all hang out there revealing the inner child.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Unidentified sockpuppet:
I find that remark offensive. I'll stand up and fight for Raevmo, Zachriel, Pixie and the whole gang. Let's get it on sockpuppet!:mad:
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ban it, Mike. Sock-monkey informs us right in his link that JackT is a puppet of Frostman, who was a puppet of… [who knows? Take your pick - they all look alike to me]. If it's not a sockpuppet of Frostman/JackT, it's probably a sockpuppet of JAM or one of the other jokers over there who can't hold their likker.
I design, build and operate puppets in real life – with a fire-breathing wing-flapping Smaug gracing the entry hall of the Puppetry Hall of Fame in Atlanta, a barn chock full of rod puppets, marionettes, humanettes, shadow-puppets and giant parade puppets plus three stages of Audrey-II. These people are rank amateurs [I hate sockpuppets!]. Not even entertaining.
Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
chunkdz:
WHAT!!!??? Don't you dare do that (unless you were planning an extended beach vacation anyway). Who will give me my occasional smooches if you're not here? Rock threw me over flat for some floozy who'd better HOPE I never find out who, not sure I'll ever get over it.
P.S. If you really are planning an extended beach stay, I've got an ex-pat friend with a wonderful beachfront chickie-bar and hostel on the west coast of Costa Rica you'd probably enjoy a lot. He's gnarly (made his fortune on Ren-faire gaming), but a sure bet for Big Adventure!
Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Unidentified sockpuppet 1: Racist!
Unidentified sockpuppet 2: Teetotaler!
Unidentified sockpuppet 1: Hate speech!
Unidentified sockpuppet 2: Carmudgeon!
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Hi olegt,
It seems to me that any scientist who is worth his salt would go about things differently. Instead of derailing threads, being direspectful, taunting me, what's wrong with waiting for the next Rabbit thread and politely asking? Is that too much to ask, olegt?
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I agree that Jack T.'s questions to Mike were disrespectful. However, I don't think that excuses my losing my temper and responding to Jack the way I did.
Comment by Bilbo — May 19, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Olegt,
why did you call someone here a tard?
Why do you use the word tard even when discussing with like-minded individuals? Like-minded refering to similar beliefs on this topic.
Oleg is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the Johns Hopkins University. He is a condensed matter theorist interested in strongly correlated electron systems, such as high-temperature superconductors and frustrated magnets.
You're all this, and you still call people who disagree with you "tards".
Comment by Doug — May 19, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Hi Mike,
I don't disagree with you on that. It just seemed to me that it wasn't just JackT's tone that offended you. But I may be wrong.
Doug,
Thanks for your concern. You weren't called Tim in a previous life, were you?
Comment by olegt — May 19, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I think Mike indicated that it was also Jack's dishonesty, taunting, and derailing a thread.
By the way, it could be that you haven't been around long enough to know that Mike has stated that he already has enough material to write two sequels to his first book. Have you read his first book?
Comment by Bilbo — May 19, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,
Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Doug, haven't you learned that IDists are evil liars who deserve every insult thrown at them by the morally upright defenders of science?
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
C'mon Raevmo. You can do better than that mealy-mouth retort.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
How bout Jack's impersonation of Frostman or is it the other way around?
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Bradford:
Yes Doug, get with the program. The first step is to admit this.
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Your moral superiority? Pahleese.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I'm finding that I have a visceral reaction anytime I think someone is attacking Mike's accomplishments, even though they don't come right out and say it. I think I better stay away from such comments, or I'll end up saying similar things that I said to Jack T.
Must work on that temper of mine.
Comment by Bilbo — May 19, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
What about my moral superiority?
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Raevmo, the pack mentality that guides critics dictates that when someone disagrees they become liars and other vile things. It then becomes incumbant to demonstrate your honesty by abusing people.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Bradford:
That's a lie! Oops. But I hope you do realize that is nonsense.
Mike Gene up-thread:
Comment by Raevmo — May 19, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Raevmo;
I've already seen the spin on disrespectful so let's look for an objective standard. If Jack and Frostman are one and the same, that would be an objective indicator of deliberate deception.
Comment by Bradford — May 19, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Raevmo:
LOL!!! My, you do have your moments, Raevmo. Not only are you totally honest and up-front about your superiority, your utter disdain for lesser humans, and your fear of other people's independent thoughts, you're also occasionally humorous enough to elicit out-loud chuckles or guffaws. That's comic relief worthy of the title.
Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I'm surprised this is being talked about – JackT's attitude was transparently intentionally rude with feigned ignorance at being so. Nothing special here, it's a gimmick most people pick up in grade school. Sockpuppets are common online too, especially on places devoted to contentious topics – the internet is nothing if not a collection of petty rivalries in a public arena.
As for olegt, eh. Having a PhD doesn't make you immune to 'Us v Them' tribalisms and namecalling – doesn't evolutionary psychology cover stuff like this?
Comment by nullasalus — May 19, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Isn't it about time for Bilbo to apologize for starting this thread?
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Yes, my real name is Tim. I started my registration here well before I posted on ERV. Well before I was comfortable using my own name (maybe because it stings more when someone says "Tim, you're a tard" opposed to "Doug, you're a tard").
So bravo, Olegt, you know my real name is Tim. Is this how you deflect criticism? My best friend got hit by a car in 1988. He's now quasipelgic (limited control over his limbs), he can't communicate past a few groaning noises and grunts, however, intellectually he's still on par with his chronological age…. so he knows what he's going through.
I don't care what your context for calling someone a 'tard' is. When I was just a 5th grader taking him for walks in his wheel chair it hurt all the same hearing neighborhood bullies refer to him as a vegetable, tard, etc.
But good job, olget, you see that I am using a name different from my real name.
Comment by Doug — May 19, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I do have big, hairy feet. My apology to Jack T. still stands, even though I thought he was being disrespectful, dishonest, taunting, and off topic. I should have just stated it that way, and let it go at that. Oh, and hypocritical.
Comment by Bilbo — May 19, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Very touching story, Doug.
Now tell us why you also acquired the nickname Danny Boy. Any other aliases that we should know about?
Comment by olegt — May 19, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
And thus with his status in the pack questioned, the professor bares his fangs and growls, attempting to defend his credentials and establish himself as 'so totally not a tard, k?'
Comment by nullasalus — May 19, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Read the links yourself, olegt. I even explained in them that Danny Boy was me because ERV stopped anon posts. Why did you overlook that, olegt? Why are you trying so desperately to turn the focus away? I posted as Tim (my actual name) and then I was blocked and I posted as Danny Boy. While posting as Danny Boy I stated that I was Tim. Nice ground, olegt.
And touching or not, why keep on deflecting? My using other handles (when I've been explicit about it) is worse than you calling someone a tard? You're something else, olegt. Will that help you sleep better at night? "Hey, I indirectly make fun of those with mental impairments when I'm trying to deride someone who disagrees with me….. but thank God I'm only using 1 handle on line".
Comment by Doug — May 19, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
nullasalus,
I don't need to establish my credentials—they're useless in a food fight.
(In fact, I don't think I have ever mentioned them on this blog. You, guys, have brought them up.)
Comment by olegt — May 19, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
olegt says:
Unfortunately, you've clearly established something else.
Comment by nobody — May 19, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Calling people "tards" started the food fight.
Comment by Doug — May 19, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hey all
Since this an apology thread I want to say I'm sorry for derailing so many other threads I tend to have ADD and end up chasing rabbits. I'll try and be better in the future.
I'm sorry for my bad grammar and spelling.
And I'm also a little sorry for being short with Zach and never giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Catholics are right confession is good for the soul
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Cain't we all juz git alongggggg?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 19, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I know you are just kidding, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Bilbo was being very gracious and look how he was repaid "“ the puppet used the opportunity to launch a smear attack on us and this blog. Then we get to learn that olegt is calling us "˜tards' behind our back. I suppose I should say I am disappointed, but I've now come to expect that behavior from most critics.
Y'know, this is a topic that has been discussed and debated for 1000s of years. So we try to create one blog environment where people from both sides can participate in that discussion/debate while making some honest effort to behave like mature adults. One environment that minimizes the name-calling, the banning, the trolling, the chest-thumping, and all the culture war rhetoric.
I think it clear that some people are opposed to that humble objective. They are the extremists.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Well, Mike, it's pretty close. It's one of the best blogs on the web, and funnest, in my experience so far, with smart peeps in all corners, freedom to express almost anything, and a minimum of rancor.
Hats off.
Oh yeah, I'm sorry for posting half-crocked sometimes. (No guarantees about the future
)
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 19, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
nullasalus:
Nobody really cares whether anyone – pro or con – is using their "real name." Nor does anyone care what other pseudonyms someone who posts here uses on other forums out there on the wide web. Pseudonyms are perfectly reasonable self-protection in cyberspace, and I'm often somewhat amazed that anybody is dumb enough to advertise their actual identity.
The issue with JackT is that his bad behavior as Frostman got him banned. The pseud named keiths (also a Swamp denizen) has been banned three or four times, keeps coming back again and again pretending to be someone else. That's a big negatory there, good buddy. If a banned commenter comes back under a new name and we can figure out who it is, he's outta here. Every time.
nullasalus later:
LOL! Oh, I've got to stop snacking at the computer desk… now I'm on my last spare keyboard! §;o)
Being a professor doesn't mean you have to be a nice person, or even very smart about real world things – why, it's rudie-boy professors who RUN this so-called culture war! Perhaps Oleg is trading his starring role in a cage for a walk on part in the war.
Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
You, like most people here, are valued contributors. In fact, the degree to which the blog is good is largely a function of y'all "“ everyone with their different backgrounds, different interests, different opinions, and different areas of knowledge. And most people seem to make some effort to be respectful. I read this blog because of you guys.
That's why trolls do us all a disservice.
If we were to adopt a totally ban-free blog, we all know the trolls would over-run the place, as they are either trouble-makers looking for jollies or extremists interested only in polarization. Do people periodically get banned? Yes, from both sides. Is it ultimately a subjective call that could in the end be unfair? Of course. How could it not be? But our challenge is the same as it has always been. If someone thinks they can create a better blog environment that allows both sides to deal with these issues, while minimizing the name-calling, the banning, the trolling, the chest-thumping, and all the culture war rhetoric, then they should simply do it. Most of us would simply migrate over there and we could close up shop.
In the meantime, warts-and-all, this place is it.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
And a very fine place it is.
Comment by nobody — May 20, 2008 @ 12:41 am
May 20th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Hmmm!
As an occasional lurker and even less frequent commenter here, may I just compliment Bilbo on his almost forthright apology.
I confess I have not read any of JackT's contributions here, but the characterisation of former commenter KeithS that I am getting seems grossly unfair. KeithS's comments were generally polite and incisive, and he must have devoted quite some time and effort in contributing here. It is a shame that it was felt necssary to exclude him, as he was quite an effective "conscience" with regard to some of the more outrageous output from other contributers, and not to your credit that you continue to denigrate him now.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 3:07 am
May 20th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Alan Fox,
I'm sorry, no. No, not by a longshot. I don't know the whole story behind the banning, nor do I care – but you lost me at polite.
I've enjoyed the contributions of some unnamed others here immensely, but I wouldn't pretend they were all polite. I wouldn't pretend I'm polite all the time – I'm sure I slip up. But keiths, generally polite? Some things, you just can't spin. This would be one of them.
Joy,
Laughter's always good! And I agree with, I think, the gist – there's nothing wrong with pseudonyms (Look at me, I never am without mine), and professors can be as human – and as ignorant – as anyone else. Hell, they usually are.
I think it's well established by both sides of the e-culture of ID commenters that TT is a pretty tolerant, as well as mature, place. Which makes the attempted line of argument here all the more boggling. But hey, politics is politics, no matter what's being discussed. I'm surprised no one has yet referred to those banned at TT as being 'Expelled'.
Comment by nullasalus — May 20, 2008 @ 4:06 am
May 20th, 2008 at 4:42 am
As the subject of banning came up I wondered what had happened to Stunney, since he hasn't posted in quite a while. Out of curiosiy I did a search on his name, and of the list of threads that was returned, a carry over thread for Religious Belief and Mental Health headed the top of the list. Glancing through it real quickly, I saw that Stunney was in rare form for that thread…and keiths was anything but polite. In fact, I had never seen Stunney so gleefully abusive as he was for that occasion. Was Stunney banned? Anyway, that thread seemed pretty interesting, enough so that I'll read it from the beginning. I had missed that thread entirely.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 20, 2008 @ 4:42 am
May 20th, 2008 at 4:45 am
For what it's worth, nullasalus, I have found your posts generally polite, too. Intransigent, wrong-headed, but generally polite. Unfortunately you post in a forum (UD) where I (along with many others) are unable to engage you in generally polite discourse.
If I may take issue with you here. I express my own honest opinions. I may be in error but I do not "spin". Certainly the moderation policy here is more relaxed than at UD, and as you say, as the issues are mainly political since, as Mike Gene acknowledges, ID is not (insert yet if you prefer) science, one can hardly expect it to be even-handed.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 4:45 am
May 20th, 2008 at 4:54 am
"Attack the ideas not the people who hold them"
DaveScot
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 4:54 am
May 20th, 2008 at 5:19 am
I followed your link and apart from robustly attacking others ideas, the only abuse I could find KeithS using was "philosopher clones".
I am not convinced.
Mark Frank demonstrates great forebearance in that thread, by the way.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 5:19 am
May 20th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Alan Fox,
An opinion's one thing. But, if you're asserting keiths was generally (and obviously) polite, then I either question your awareness of what he posted, or your definition of 'polite'. In the end, it's penny-ante stuff, not worth arguing about – I think the posts speak for themselves, and I'll leave it at that.
I don't think just the moderation policy is more relaxed here – the whole tone is, period, and may well be the result of culling people who are too obnoxious. It's not like there aren't other haunts on the net where people can talk about ID, declaring anyone who disagrees with them as a tard or as gullible people clearly in need of a crutch. Anyone can start a blog for free, or a website for almost-free.
As for me – honestly, I slip up at times and cop to it. And frankly, 'politeness' can often be more show than sincere anyway, where people try to come off gentlemanly while they slip in their insults and low-blows all the same. In which case, it's not really politeness – it's just shit-flinging with a top hat and monocle.
Comment by nullasalus — May 20, 2008 @ 5:40 am
May 20th, 2008 at 5:45 am
There, nullasalus, I heartily agree with you.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 5:45 am
May 20th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Hi, Alan Fox,
That was a snip of part of keiths response, his second in the carry over thread. I characterize this sort of comment opener as insulting, and anything but polite. Keiths was not the only one on that thread that resorted to rude and condescending language. [Edit: I have to admit that I"ve had my less than stellar moments as well.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 20, 2008 @ 7:16 am
May 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am
MikeGene wrote:
I don't think that's an accurate characterization, Mike. I don't paint with a broad brush.
My comments at the other forum referred strictly to Joy. You may not be aware that a short while ago she labeled Zachriel, Todd B., Raevmo and yours truly Holocaust deniers. She made it very clear that it was not hyperbole. When a number of commenters (including those who supported Joy's argument, but not her over-the-top tone) pointed out that Holocaust denial has a specific meaning, Joy responded that she does not recognize anyone's authority on the subject and can make her own definitions as she pleases. Joy's behavior didn't strike me as logical and I pointed that out at AtBC. Joy is a known conspiracy theorist and I don't hold such people in high regard, particularly when their education level allows them to know better.
As to calling people names behind their back, Joy labeled me a poser before I even established a presence at TT. This food fight started a while ago.
Comment by olegt — May 20, 2008 @ 7:47 am
May 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread? How about the "Joy is Batshit Insane" thread? Or maybe the "Bradford is Incredibly Stupid, Incredibly Ignorant, and Incredibly Dishonest" thread? The "Guts is a Fascist Lying Bastard" thread?
Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
These guys are a nasty piece of work, and it's not art. There is something positively creepy about a web forum calling itself The Critic's Resource that is nothing but a glorified chat-with-graphics for anti-social outcasts wasting endless days and nights calling people names, bitching about how many times they've been banned from other forums for abuse and general delinquency, and howling in rage whenever one of their chosen sacrificial lambs resists the knife and kicks them in the nuts instead of rolling over.
I personally don't know why we put up with ANY AtBC poser on this forum. It's not like they're capable of being what you might call honest or anything. I haven't seen any Swamp denizens offering apologies for bad behavior in this apology thread. And while I can certainly get as frustrated as anyone with juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats, I do not apologize for having little tolerance for narcissists with Asperger's or spoiled brats who need a spanking a whole lot more than they need 'understanding'.
But then, I do have other things to do with my time, and science has already brushed the mud of these dinosaurs off its collective bio-sneakers. Which is just what I predicted long ago would happen when it became inescapable that their restrictive paradigm was flat wrong. Have a happy life, and don't forget to laugh occasionally – it really is absurd!
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2008 @ 11:18 am
May 20th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Joy:
I agree. That group would pretend it is the brilliance of their arguments or an inability of opponents to cope with them that causes their banning. Truthfully it is the corruption of their character and evidence of it is right there in the forum.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 11:33 am
May 20th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Raevmo is correct.
"Tard", an acronym for The Argument Regarding Designâ„¢. Tard can be fluffy or dense or stretched out like taffy, and comes in several common flavors. L. tardare "to slow". See tard-mine, tardilicious, Tardistan.
Joy is correct, too. About everything.
Comment by Zachriel — May 20, 2008 @ 11:58 am
May 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
And why do you think "tard" was selected, Zach.
In grade school we did similar things with Nerd, Jerk and moron. in grade school, Zach.
And why do you think we used those terms to be the head of our acronym?
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Here are some definitions of tard from the urban dictionary.
1. tard: Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'
2. tard: Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties but for whatever reason has opted out of using it. Whereas mental retardation is genetic in nature, this form of behavior is environmental usually resulting in too much daytime television, Brittany Spears piped in pop music, and other environmental factors.
My own view is that its useage constitutes a bannable offense. Let those so inclined use it in the swamps.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
L. tardare "to slow".
I thought it was because of the slow (tardacious) and deliberate manner of building The Argument Regarding Design.
Raevmo already pointed out that the term is being used in its technical sense. If there is any confusion on this, then I (segueing back to topic) apologize.
Comment by Zachriel — May 20, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Use of terms like tard indicate a shut-down mentality on the part of those flinging the word about. They may pay lip service to the notion that Telic Thoughts is a reasonable place for discourse but true intent is revealed by the remarks of Raevmo and Zachriel. You can't have reasoned exchanges while having to tolerate the trash talk of swamp denizens.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Mote and beam, Bradford, mote and beam.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Was that meant to be an intelligible response Alan?
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Please all note that the claim that TARD is a derived acronym is merely a joke. We need no more historical revisionism.
Comment by Pez — May 20, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Bradford:
It's not like we don't know it's intended as insult – as Doug reminds us, we all came up with not-so clever acronyms in grade school. Just find words to fit the desired acronym. Why anyone would believe they can sell "TARD" as innocently derived is beyond my ken. It's just another "SMEGMA" or any of a dozen supposedly tongue-in-cheek insulting acronyms I won't mention because they're so insulting.
And per the entirely predictable attempt to turn it around on us (or just me for calling these juvenile delinquents juvenile delinquents), AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. This is ridiculous, juvenile, and absolutely NOT designed to further the idea of civil, rational discussion of issues. That's just page 1 of the topic list.
I know these people aren't fooling me, I don't get the feeling they're fooling anybody else here either. The most amazing part is that they seem to believe they CAN bluff their way around the physical, documented and empirical evidence of their duplicity and true positions. While calling TT "the best of the ID forums," as if that means anything other than "let's go destroy it!" to people like this.
I can make up acronyms all day (there is a strong temptation to define "JERKWAD" but I'll refrain for obvious reasons). So can they. It still looks like a grade school playground to me, and these are not the geeks getting picked on – they're the bullies. Pretending not so is a little like a 12-year old "at-risk" student I once handled in an after school program. He'd hit some girl or other for no apparent reason, then tell me right to my face when I called him on it that "It wasn't me!" Fully expecting me to buy it, and just not smart enough yet to realize there's no way on earth that's going to happen.
Hope I taught him the reality of social ramifications of his bad behaviors, really do expect him to be police chief someday (he was one of my favorites). He had a real excuse for his issues. I don't see how those apply in any way to Oleg, Zach or any other Swamp denizen who plays games over here so they can hoot and howl over there.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I apologize for… well, I'm not sure, but I must have done something bad in order to be banned from an interesting discussion in the "So then how did it happen?" thread. If you read my posts, you can see I never call anybody any names, and I make no ad hominem arguments. Bradford and Joy seemed to get really mad at me anyway, ostensibly because I was off topic. But of course as soon as they banned me, Bradford, CJYman, and Kornbelt continue to discuss the topic I was writing about… so apparently it really isn't about being off-topic after all.
It's my best guess that many ID-friendly folks (with some notable exceptions, like nullasalus) do not understand my arguments, and it makes them really angry. So I guess I should apologize for not being able to make some people understand the issues better.
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
HI Joy,
Zach and Raevmo are being funny, of course. But just in case…. the first 37 of those pages devoted to UD feature various uses of the word "retard" in relation to design supporters. On page 37 a new designation is invented:
http://www.antievolution.org/c...
Pages 38-45 find the denizens reveling in their newly discovered word and expanding its uses.
But nobody was going to take the acronym thing seriously anyway, right?
[edit to Doug - re. Zach:
his being funny is in reference to the joke about the acronym.]
Comment by Pez — May 20, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Zach wasn't saying that stuff. He's consistent. The way he acts here is the way he acts there. He disagrees but he's respectful.
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I holed Kornbelt's comments as he should have seen my off-topic remark. I'll let Zach's and CJY's comments stand giving them the benefit of the doubt and noting consciousness- a different concept was the source of contention between them. As for you and Kornbelt and all other interested parties there are threads already posted that can host your topic. If you don't take it there it would appear that your complaint is insincere.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Bradford – I am completely sincere in my posts, and I think you have no good reason to doubt this. If you would be kind enough to tell me which thread would be appropriate for continuing the discussion, I'd be very happy to post my responses to Kornbelt, CJY, and others there… particularly because CJY is explicitly asking for my responses!
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
The discussion can be continued here.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Doug wrote:
No, Doug, your story doesn't hold water. On this thread the comments of Danny Boy were followed by those of an anonymous poster (presumably you). Make up another story.
Comment by olegt — May 20, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
You need me to explain?! Matthew 7:3
You complain about others using the word "tard" in a comment where you say:
And you find my comment unintelligible?
Inconceivable!
Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Thanks very much, Bradford! (Anyone willing to consider the possibility that the concepts of teleology and intelligence as usually discussed at TT and in ID in general are confused, please join me there for a nice, constructive discussion of the issues. Bradford, if you still think that intelligence entails freedom from "physical necessity", you might want to join in!).
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
My story doesn't hold water?
My REAL NAME is TIM. I started posting on here as Doug because I felt uncomfortable with the climate of the debate. Ask Krauze or Mike Gene, I explained this to them well before I ever posted on ERV, when I started emailing them.
I posted as Tim on ERV, then I got blocked (which if you read Abbie's comments you'd realized that she blocked anons) so I posted as Danny Boy acknowledging that I was Tim.
And olegt, NO, I was not the anonymous poster at the end of that thread.
I posted only as Tim and then as Danny Boy. You are just grasping for straws.
I can't believe you are this desperate. I am being as open as possible about this, you just feel uncomfortable because I called you on your 'tard' comment. Deal with it if it bugs you.
Have Abbie check the IPs of those posters.
There's no other story to make up, olegt. You're looking so hard for something to pin on me when it was you that caused this with your 'tard' comment.
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Funny olegt,
when I would actually reply to your posts before all of this you just ignored me. Now you can't take my name out of your mouth. Making up any story that your mind can conjure up to alleviate some of the pressure you appear to be feeling.
A prof, that calls people tards, that tries this desperately to tear someone down when he's called on his behavior when he has nothing to go on. And, when the line of my postings at the blog he brought into question are consistent.
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
There is more to it than the verse you link to. Christ did not fail to criticize both sin and sinners when the need arose. Neither did the apostles. This expands on that theme:
Some judgments necessary
Sometimes the "mote and beam" parable is taken to the other extreme and used as an excuse for making no judgments whatsoever, but this is not what is intended either; we need to be mindful of the whole council of God. In the Gospel of John our Lord Jesus Christ says: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). The apostle Paul also called on the Corinthian Ecclesia to adjudicate in matters that were troubling the ecclesia because of the sin of one brother: "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (I Cor. 6:2).
The remarks appearing at locations like the one referred to by Joy are off the charts. The uncharitable remarks are repetitive and not the consequence of some momentary emotional outburst of anger.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Hi olegt,
I'll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
I see. Well, many critics have likened me to a holocaust denier and I have also found even more of them to be conspiracy theorists. So according to your logic, a significant chunk of ID critics are "tards." Do you take an even-handed approach when it comes to labeling others as tards, or is it more selective?
Look, I suppose I can somewhat understand the appeal of ridiculing another as a "˜tard,' especially when it is part of herd behavior. It's the type of insult many of us remember from 7th and 8th grade. It appeals to our immature and primitive tribalistic instincts, as the label helps to denigrate the outgroup while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie and superiority among the herd.
I'm reminded of some things Ian Musgrave wrote:
Clearly, he cannot be talking about most ID critics.
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mike Gene:
Bullseye.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Mike:
Almost correct. In addition to stupid or dishonest they can also be misguided (usually as a result of many years of brainwashing). Although the three categories are obviously not mutually exclusive, I think that many if not most ID proponents fall into the last category. You expose your own stereotypes by neglecting to mention this important category.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Please precisely define what you mean by "ID". Thanks.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 20, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Raevmo:
I don't think the evidence supports your claim. I frequently come across the stupid or dishonest charge but much rarer is the allegation that the opponent is simply misguided. Misguided does not carry the impact of the other two and is consequently less likely to get applause from the rest of the herd.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Bradford:
You are a hypocrite since you routinely engage in name-calling and various ad-homs. Fine by me, but don't deny it.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Let me do some more name calling then. The quote is worth repeating as it is so applicable.
Note the difference in our name calling. You frequently label others and have used choice words like stupid, dishonest, hypocrite… As Harry Truman once said (paraphrasing) and this applies to you:
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
kornbelt:
The belief that some external agent (usually God) intervened into the evolution of life on earth.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Bradford:
Note what difference? You quote Mike as if you said it. What's up with that? Yes, I sometimes but rarely label others stupid or dishonest or hypocrite, but so do you. Do you want to do a comparative analysis where we compare each other's frequencies of those words?
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
What's up with enclosing Mike's statement in a quote box and preceeding it with the words: "The quote is worth repeating…" Is this your version of honest name calling?
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Raevmo:
Or its origin.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Raevmo,
Does your philosophy allow for any other valid possibilities than those three?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 20, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Our being yours and mine, you referring to a quote of Mike. Are you denying that you routinely call your opponents dishonest?
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
kornbelt:
Of course I could be wrong as well. But the point was that ID critics do not classify all ID proponents as either stupid or dishonest, although it's hardly unheard of. That claim was just a little dishonesty on Mike's part.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
MikeGene wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth, Mike. I did not criticize Joy because she called me a poser. And when she broad-brushed the four of us as Holocaust deniers, I just refused to speak to her. Only later, when she went on to redefine the Holocaust denial, did it occur to me that she became simply unhinged from reality. You can only laugh at the lack of logic of such proportions. So I did.
Comment by olegt — May 20, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Routinely huh. I've posted what- roughly 30-40 comments in the last two days alone? So let's see you spin routinely.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Uh oh. I see olegt needs some help.
When Riding a Dead Horse
Community wisdom says, "When you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount." On the internet often other strategies are tried with dead horses, including the following:
Buying a stronger whip.
Changing riders.
Appointing a committee to study the horse.
Visiting other blogs to see how they ride dead horses.
Changing the requirements, declaring, "This horse is not dead."
Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
Comment by nobody — May 20, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Bradford:
OK. Routinely as in whenever you feel you are losing an argument or are embarrassed.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Raevmo, since you made the charge you might as well back it up.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Raevmo:
Look at what Mike actually wrote:
Mike never claimed that all ID critics classify all ID proponents as either stupid or dishonest as Raevmo suggests. He wrote the vast majority paint with a broad brush and since almost all ID critics… Incidentally that's also clearly an opinion as opposed to a deliberate misstatement of fact. It is also arguable that when someone claims you are brainwashed he is making a claim that you were duped. Not an indicator of intelligence.
So you Raevmo are dishonest with respect to this specific charge. Your charge is based on your own subjective opinion rather than documentation of a deliberate distortion or misrepresentation of facts. You feel entitled to level charges of dishonesty- allegations about integrity- based on personal feelings. As I said before if you'll stop telling lies about us I'll stop telling the truth about you.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
olegt:
And of course your summary judgments of me have nothing at all to do with my previous characterization of you (in your AtBC "good old boy" persona specific to the organized TP firing squad over there) as a "poser," because you're just not the kind of guy who would allow such things to color your cool rationality.
It wasn't hyperbole, it's how I feel about people who deny the actual trail of evil beliefs, evil deeds, evil legislation and more evil deeds that led directly to the legislative models Hitler used to institute his racial policies, which quickly became a Holocaust (with the aid of millions of people fooled by the whole "sciencey" excuse for unbridled bigotry).
It's how I feel about what occurred to millions of blacks, Native Americans, orphans (all shapes and colors), poor whites, southern European immigrants, the Irish, the sick, the elderly, the crippled, the Rom. The Jews were NOT the only victims of this pseudoscientific scam, and it bugs the hell out of me when people deny that the Holocaust extended broadly across continents and oceans. As if only Jewish lives count.
Others need not agree with me, and nobody expects the Jewish lobby to agree. That's okay, I'm sure they'd call me a "Holocaust Denier" because I count the lives of Gypsies and Indians and orphans and cripples and epileptics and bread-thieves as just as valuable as theirs. Oddly, my Jewish (Holocaust survivor) godparents taught me to extend my empathy to all the victims from beginning to end. They probably forgot to ask permission from the newly formed Israeli government for that breach of in-group protocol.
I am quite used to having my own mind and my own independent thoughts and beliefs about things, and I'm also quite used to the freedom to give them voice. I don't begrudge others the same freedoms, and it seems to me that you've given voice to your judgments of me with a good deal of back-slapping approbation from the in-group you chose to identify with. I shouldn't think that my feelings in the matter are of any concern at all. I don't expect them to be.
I know. Frustrating, n'est ce pas? How dare anyone who's not Jewish assert that eugenics was an evil that led to the Holocaust by doing great harm to hundreds of thousands of human beings who weren't Jewish! Harm enough to consider the whole misguided, pseudoscientific evil perpetrated upon humanity to BE one huge Holocaust!
You'll have this occasionally in people of strong opinions and the experiential history to back them up. They somehow missed my parents in the roundup. Probably because Dad was somewhere that shall remain unnamed aboard the USS Indianapolis during those crucial years, and Mom wasn't an orphan.
Ah, at last. The true crux of the matter. It would seem that my simple existence is of considerable discomfort to you. I surely don't know why, but there it is. I'm still not clear on how that makes me a "Tard," since the causal trail from eugenics to the Holocaust doesn't have much to do with "The Argument Regarding Design." Unless, of course, rounding up undesirable humans and killing them off was part of some design, as opposed to just being an unpredictable, random historical wild card – the "hip thing to do" in a faddish sort of way. I don't expect that what I have to say about it would dent anyone's certainty of that revisioned history, but I can be counted upon to say it anyway.
You'll have that occasionally too.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Hi Raevmo,
My stereotypes are the product of arguing with hundreds of critics (and that's an experience you don't have). So you say that you view most ID proponents as victims of brainwashing. I would not have guessed this from your behavior here, as you tend to treat your opponents as if they are stupid or dishonest (at least, that's the impression I get), not victims. If you really think of ID proponents as victims, let me suggest that calling them "˜tards' is unlikely to help anyone escape from their brainwashing. On the contrary, it is more likely to reduce your credibility and entrench their resistance to the liberating message that you bring.
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
MikeGene,
And if racists really feel that those not of the Good Races are really stupid, lazy, and otherwise, they'd feel sympathy instead of hate, and speak with kindness instead of malice. Because people with those mentalities tend to be rational. Ha!
I understand what you're getting at, and it's a nobler way of looking at things. But really – appealing to reason here? I guess someone has to do it, but this all comes down to 'us v them'. The reason olegt stoops to name calling is because, uh, er, he doesn't like conspiracy theorists especially when they're of the right 'education level' (Because people with degrees agree with each other, and when they do it's because they're just plain smarter rather than in yet another culture, right?) Why, Raevmo's just incensed because he's positive he's dealing with malicious liars but also they're brainwashed so it's not really their fault, so, um… anyway he can't help but snarl and obsess over them anyway! Because if people were truly intelligent and honest, they'd agree on everything. You know, like Hitchens and PZ Myers do.
It's just crap-flinging and tribal hooting. At the end of the day a 'they' is needed by many, whether it's ID proponents, religious people in general, or even "guys who like the Patriots". Since most everyone knows no experiments are going to come along to prove or (worse yet!) disprove design, much less (a)theism, even the content of the arguments don't matter terribly. It has more to do with feeling good, impressing others, and imagining you accomplished something in the process. Not necessarily in that order.
Then again, it's not like I'm pointing out a big secret here.
Comment by nullasalus — May 20, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 3:33 am
Mike:
There you go again with your standard tactic of putting words in other people's mouths. I didn't call ID proponents victims, nor did I call them tards. Let me suggest that calling your opponents 'evil baby-killing materialists' is not helpful. Oh, you didn't actually say that? Sorry.
Comment by Raevmo — May 21, 2008 @ 3:33 am
May 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
nullasalus:
Ah, the race card. A bit ironic coming from an adherent to the anti-semitic Catholic tradition.
And here you are snarling and obsessing. Do you really think that I believe that intelligence and honesty imply agreement on everything? No, I didn't think so.
Comment by Raevmo — May 21, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 am
@ nullasalus
Perhaps a little off-topic, but as, unlike me, you are able to comment at UD, you might pass on to Dave Springer that his continued gratuitous abuse of Mark Perakh, a respected academic with, at 83, a fine mind, full of wit and humour, as I can confirm from personal communications, may be counter-productive. It is certainly demeaning to Dave, though I suspect he doesn't care.
Thanks in advance.
Comment by Alan Fox — May 22, 2008 @ 2:45 am
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
It's been two weeks since I asked if anyone was willing to defend anon9. No one did. anon9 was banned.
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
How about confirming or denying that anon9 and JackT are the same person?
Comment by olegt — June 2, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
OK
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Hi olegt,
Since some of us suspected that anon9 was just a sock for JackT, JackT was also banned at the same time anon9 was banned. JackT wrote me an e-mail a week-or-so ago to complain. I wrote up a reply, but decided to just move on rather than post it. But since you asked, here it is (I'll just post the parts that deal with the sock angle):
Here's how I see it. You were not a major player at TT, as you joined on Apr 3 and your last posting was on May 2. You posted only about two dozen postings. Yet anon9 was extremely familiar with the trivial details of the few postings you offered:
1. If we go back to the thread where you ask your multiple questions, many of us immediately recognized the disrespectful nature of that posting. You tried to spin it differently by portraying the questions as follows: "The questions certainly are direct, and they constitute a challenge." A couple of weeks later, anon9 is the only one to repeat this very spin: "His last posts were challenging Mike directly."
2. Bilbo makes an understandable mistake in his OP "“ he refers to JackT as Jack T. I myself made this mistake in my early replies to you, as it comes from not paying close attention to a new person's screen name. anon9 neither makes the same mistake nor follows Bilbo's lead from the OP. He gets this trivial detail right "“ it's JackT from the start.
3. Mostly importantly, anon9 knows JackT's very last posting: "His very last one embarrassed Joy (though deservedly so)." How many lurkers could accurately cite the very last posting of another TT member that was a couple of weeks old, especially a member who is new and hasn't posted much? At the time, JackT wasn't banned and no one had reason to think he was banned (anon9 is the first and only one to make that accusation). It gets even better. JackT's questioning of Joy is buried in a thread with close to 200 comments and no one else seemed to notice that brief line of off-topic questioning (at least no one commented on it or followed it up). I noticed it only because I was looking for JackT while I was waiting for JackT to reply to my questions and answers. And then there is the fact that Joy shows no evidence of being embarrassed, but one might imagine the giggling JackT thought he had embarrassed Joy (JackT: "No results found in the standard legal databases. *giggle*"). Again, anon9 seems to be the only one who agrees.
Add these up and either anon9 follows the exchanges of TT very, very closely to remember such trivia from 2-3 weeks ago, you two are good friends, or he is your sock. I lean toward the last explanation.
Now is this powerful evidence? Of course not. But the decision to ban from a little blog on a decent suspicion of sock-puppetry does not require powerful evidence, now does it?
Sorry, but this doesn't wash either. Okay, we're supposed to believe you stumbled upon this blog and were simply perplexed, wondering "What the heck is going on here?" But go back to one of your disrespectful questions: "Will you still be wagging your finger at Dawkins and PZ Myers?" Do you notice the problem?
PZ Myers and Dawkins were not the subject of the thread. In fact, I have not "wagged my finger at" Dawkins in over six months. And Myers? It has been well over a year since I "wagged my finger at" him! Your question implies a familiarity with this blog that is at least a year old.
So not only was your question unnecessary and disrespectful, but it leads me to believe you have been reading this blog for at least a year and didn't just stumble across it as you claim.
So that leaves us with the IP issue. Why yes, you are correct, anon9 and JackT have different IPs. But alas, that doesn't help you much.
For starters, anon9's IP was 72.249.100.50. And according to this site, that IP is from a proxy site.
But what about JackT? During the month that JackT posted, he/she used 4 different IPs. I have no problem publicly listing two of them:
67.159.56.82
67.159.47.43
Why list them? They track to track back to FDCservers.net. And if you google 67.159.56.82, you'll find things like this:
Here
And if you google 67.159.47.43:
Here
So it looks like JackT and anon9 have something else in common "“ they both have used proxies to post to Telic Thoughts!
So let's go back to JackT:
Oh, I see think many can now see the irony alright.
Comment by MikeGene — June 3, 2008 @ 10:11 am
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
olegt:
Sorry, oleg. Confirmation is entirely unnecessary, though I think Mike has made a decent case for skullduggery on the part of both these pseuds (whether they're the same person or not). We don't need 'em, as their posts have contributed nothing of value to the discussions here.
Now, we recognize that the drunken hangout of disgruntled culture warriors you are known to haunt is peopled with those who seem to have a great deal of trouble staying on any ID-related blog or message board long enough to do any significant damage. It could be that they have real problems maintaining a civil demeanor in discussions with 'tards, or it could be that they end up revealing themselves through the use of proxy servers no one but bad bots and spammer/scammers use to disguise their identity. Either way, they've no reason for complaint.
I've suspected ever since the keiths-bot threw such a hissy fit that the only reason these grumps whine so loudly is because they're getting paid by the post – a form of spam. That's the only reason I can think of for them to be so ridiculously upset when off-topic or disruptive crap gets holed or deleted and they have their access cut off. My question to you as a live-in Swamp denizen who apparently cares whether your Swamp-mates can spam this blog is WHO is paying you guys to post, how much do you get paid per post, is that allotted according to how "important" the forum is rated to be, and how do we get in on that scam?
Comment by Joy — June 3, 2008 @ 1:10 pm