TT Rates #35 in the Top 100!
by JoyA website named X-Ray Technician Schools [Alabama] has offered its "Top 100 Cutting-Edge Science Blogs" list, and Telic Thoughts weighs in at #35, #2 under the Biology section. After General, Astronomy, Academic, Research and Group Blogs. Had they started with Biology, we'd be much farther up the list.
Seed's ScienceBlogs comes in collectively at #32 under Group Blogs, none are individually singled out. Panda's Thumb appears at #84 under Miscellaneous.
Now, this list isn't exactly authoritative for the blogosphere ratings system (that has long held PZ's Pharyngula as the #1 Science Blog despite its piddly percentage of actual science posts). But it is a pretty good collection of blogs about this and that, and NOT dominated by Seed's insular empire of professional Culture Warriors. Check it out!
August 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Seems quite a reasonable pick of science blogs, Bad Astronomy, Inoculated Mind etc. even PT! I never realised TT was a biology blog; I would be interested in hearing from any posters here who have expertise in biology and what field of research they specialise in.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 4, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I suspect Mike Gene's contributions were one of the reasons for our being rated so high.
Comment by Bilbo — August 4, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Alan Fox:
Do you never read the posts, linked research reports or discussions about various aspects of biology here, Alan? Why, right there in the 'categories' list on the front page you can find posts about convergent evolution, DNA repair, evo-devo, evolution and evo-psych, fine-tuning, front-loading, OOL, proteins and RNA. Right there on the front page right now there's a post on 'building blocks' and astrobiology, tetrahymena, and new computer tools for investigating things like protein folding.
As for most all science blogs (including Pharyngula), the science posts don't generate the interminable blab-fests that posts about the culture wars do, but pretending there are no science-related posts is patently dishonest.
Are YOU a biologist, Alan? Zach tells us he is. Alan MacNeill's name comes readily to mind. Albert de Roos counts. Despite pseudonyms, several contributors work in the fields. Many of our commenters claim to as well, though who knows if that's true?
You don't have to like the biology that gets talked about here, but you can't legitimately pretend no biology gets talked about here. We'll understand if you prefer other, more authoritative talk-about-biology-sometimes blogs, but here you are anyway. Go figure.
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Joy says:
Unfortunately, this is typical symptom of design denial syndrome.
Comment by nobody — August 4, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Bilbo:
No doubt, Bilbo. And as his researches progress, we'll be posting cross-linked updates to keep readers abreast. Having read The Design Matrix, I can well imagine that the "doing science" aspect of his life is upshifting into overdrive, which must make his online activities cut into his real-time. With a family and a life to live, something's gotta give!
One need not be an active researcher or academic in order to have knowledge of biology, the ability/desire to parse developments, or the interest to keep up with developments. It's been nearly 30 years since I operated full time, and health physics was always an ugly stepchild of a biological community that gets squeamish around physics.
As for news on the home front, my sister the plant physiologist has retired from her globe-hopping job of thanklessly teaching basic biology to privileged FS brats, we're finally able to begin planning actual details for that definitive tome on plant-based alkaloids and traditional medicine we promised each other we'd do 'someday' when the exciting part of our lives had settled out a bit. My decades long learning and experimentation experience might pay off in the end, you never know!
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
nobody:
Yes, it is very unfortunate. I keep hoping 'science' itself will eventually move firmly in the direction of including design approaches, but that comes and goes depending on who's keeping the gates secure today. The resistance is way out of proportion to the incoming evidence of design, even if they don't call it that (never expected them to, actually). If that ever happens, the die-hards will find themselves as outside the mainstream as ID advocates do right now.
Eventually academia is going to recognize that design approaches may offer actually useful pay-offs in knowledge and power, as private enterprise already knows. That, or they'll get replaced as they retire and/or die off by those who DO recognize the potential power of the approach.
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
What you see mostly on this blog are statements of faith like the claim Joy just made. I guess enough scientific articles are linked that one could claim this blog is a "science blog" but it certainly seems borderline to me. For the most part someone links a science article and then everyone around here reinterprets the results based on their personal metaphysics or just complains about how wrong and ignorant and corrupt main-stream science is. I don't consider myself qualified to participate in a real science blog but I feel right at home here.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 4, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Todd B.:
It's faith only in so far as I hope (hope… hope…) science will in the end revert to being science instead of religion or politics. Given the corruptions I've seen at work on the applications end (not so much in research), that's a pretty big hope, I'll grant. Still, if science wishes to keep feeding at the public trough, it's going to have to get back to its actual job description. Money's tight, getting tighter. Nobody really has to fund folks like PZ to play his ego games or produce public blasphemy instead of useful public science, you know. When money's tight, decisions on this sort of thing aren't that hard to make.
Your complaint would probably go farther at X-Ray Technician Schools, who compiled the list. I was delighted to see us listed, I don't care what their criteria for judgment was. Perhaps it had something to do with what they thought their student body might enjoy.
Yeah. You said you came here because you wanted to discuss directly with Mike his ideas published in The Design Matrix. He has an online blog dedicated to just that subject, but is not directly participating here anymore. I'm glad you feel welcome to be who you are/want to be here. Have you anything scientific to contribute, or are we all the way down to peanut gallery sniping?
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
A blog that no one ever seems to post comments on (the entire front page has zero comments).
That's my point, we are all the peanut gallery and no one here contributes anything scientific.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 4, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Todd B.:
Have you tried to post a comment? Has Mike got comments disabled? Maybe he's just sick of sniping pot-shots, can't say I blame him.
Looks to me like what you like is shield bashing in the good ol' Culture War, not actual science. But since you say you're interested in science, did you know that industrial hemp yields more biomass per acre than any other crop ever discovered, bred or engineered? As the US seeks to end its dependence on foreign oil (yeah, right), shouldn't this be an option? Better than switchgrass, better than corn, better even than Miscanthus x giganteus.
Did you know that Mercedes Benz is using hemp to produce auto bodies and dashboards? That hempseed oil burns brighter than any other plant oil and can be used to make diesel fuel, varnish, detergent, ink, home heating oil and high quality lubricants?
Did you know it can grow in marginal soils and needs no fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or irrigation? Did you know that the Father of our Country once advised us to…
"Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed and sow it everywhere." ?
Did you know our young people are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for things like oil pipelines from the Caspian and oil fields currently not producing anything at all (because of war)? Why do you suppose we might turn Iran into a sea of glass? Did you know that we could put the vast majority of single and double family housing as well as rural industry totally off-grid within ten years?
What would you like to talk about, other than your disdain for Telic Thoughts? Science news and developments like these are sadly relegated to the invisible subcommittees of gub'ment flunkies who aren't qualified to blow their own noses. It's illegal to grow industrial hemp in this country, and Monsanto is just sure it can bioengineer something better than grass for biofuels (to grow in our American grasslands). For a whole lot more money, too!
Your issues are just as political, aren't they? Are you man enough to admit it?
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Todd:
If a research paper is directly referenced the number of resulting comments is likely to be less than occurs when a report of the paper is referenced or when the topic does not even focus on research. The decreased number of commenters includes the self-styled "defenders of science." This has been noticed by a number of TTers and recently was alluded to in an exchange between me and TP as well.
Comment by Bradford — August 4, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Joy,
To answer your questions: No. I don't know. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Born again president on a mission from God. No, you're being naive if you think that. I have no disdain for Telic Thoughts, if I did I wouldn't be here. I dislike the anti-science fundamentalist political movement behind ID, if thats what you mean. I'm all man baby
.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 4, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:20 am
I am not sure these sites are ordered that specifically. I acknowledge Mike is the contrbutor who has linked most to science articles.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:20 am
August 5th, 2008 at 2:27 am
I read posts which usually are cut and paste with little additional input, but I do not see much informed discussion in the comments. I most often see Zachriel correcting others misunderstandings.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:27 am
August 5th, 2008 at 2:27 am
edit delete duplicate
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:27 am
August 5th, 2008 at 2:35 am
No. I have stated here before that I took an undergraduate course in biochemistry many years ago but did not pursue a scientific career.
So Todd and I have declared ourselves. Allen MacNeill teaches biology at Cornell. What credentials or expertise do other posters have in biology, to merit referring to this blog as educational in biology?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:35 am
August 5th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Why am I here? No it's not to learn about the biology. For all his faults, I find Paul Myers one of the best communicators on science on the net. PT contributors such as Matske at PT are always worth reading.
I think I come here because the people fascinate me and I like to observe and occasionally can't resist joining in. I am also somewhat fascinated and puzzled by those with religious zeal, which is something I cannot personally comprehend.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:41 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Alan,
You come to Telic Thoughts for the religious zeal?!?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 11:15 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am
You see, it's not because of the interesting topics that are discussed here. No. It's not the varied and unique personalities from both sides of the fence that blog/comment here. No.
It's just to people-watch you religious zealots and watch Zachriel correct all your scientific misunderstandings (he knows this is happening 'cause he once took an undergrad course in BioChem.)
Sheesh. Of course, the typical insecure Internet jackass isn't really so hard to comprehend, is it.
Anyway, Joy/TT, congrats on the ranking. This is, hands down, my favorite blog on the 'ol inter-tubes. For what that's worth.
Comment by Rob R. — August 5, 2008 @ 11:24 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Alan,
LOL! Yeah, he sure straightened everybody out about tetrahymena!
(Isn't it funny that when Wikipedia doesn't have the answer, Mr. Science decides to punt on the biology quiz? LOL!)
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 11:36 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
To observe it, sure!
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 11:42 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Yes, to a degree it is.
So, do you have any scientific credentials? No one has owned up to any so far.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 11:48 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I didn't notice anyone else coming up with the mechanism. Mike Gene only speculates about the possible mechanism of the observed phenomenon. Do you have any scientific credentials?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 11:51 am
August 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Alan,
Let's see…
Afon, Bipod, Bradford, Deuce, Guts, Joy, Krauze, Macht, Steve, Mike Gene….
Nope, not one religious zealot in the bunch. Mostly a bunch of curious laypeople. I can think of much better blogs to visit where you can gawk at the funny zealots.
Perhaps you are just seeing what you expect to see.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 11:55 am
August 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Alan,
I was talking about the quiz. Our resident biologist/scientismist seemed to know a great deal of Wiki info about tetrahymena but couldn't answer a simple quiz. So much for scientific credentials.
I have a degree in Bullshit Detection.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are projecting. There seems to quite a bit of religious discussion on the Jesus thread. And I do really find it fascinating.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
You should make your comments on the appropriate thread where they can be answered.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
So what is the mechanism that causes Tetrahymena to die rather than bloom in a nutrient substrate below a critical density?
So, no to the scientific credentials, then.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Alan,
Projecting what?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Alan Fox:
"Are YOU a biologist, Alan?"
Yet you find the discussions here interesting enough to read, occasionally participate in. Why would you not believe that's the reason many of us are here too? If you were to journey back into some of the older threads you'd find enough science to keep your mind engaged. Alas, many of the most interesting investigations (including some related to the MT/Actin networks involved in testing Hameroff's theory as well as work on prion infectivity mechanisms and SNPs in the database to predict 'waves' of the ongoing epidemic) have gone proprietary just when things got really interesting. You'll have this in a scientific climate where academic gatekeepers think their job is to prevent researches that scare them, but Big Bucks on the applications end isn't nearly so tied to 'orthodoxy' and culture wars. The real work isn't very public anymore, it seems…
I recall a fine discussion of one of the coolest results from application of new (then) microarray technology used by researchers at Duke to get an expression profile from a group of heart transplant patients before and after transplant and associated with installed ventricular support pumps (to keep them alive long enough to get a transplant). A range of heart problems represented, at various-but-serious enough for transplant stages of failure/disease.
ALL patients displayed physical evidence of tissue remodeling of their assisted hearts when they were tested again post-transplant. ALL patients displayed the very same expression suite that led to that healing (various degrees, depending on condition and cause of the disease state). At what point in evolution do you suppose humans developed a specific healing suite of gene expression that would kick in when a mechanical assist pump was attached to their ailing hearts? Yeah… that's so unlikely as to be silly, yet there it was in black and white on the microarray read-outs. That research has gone primarily proprietary too, alas.
They haven't yet developed "healing in a pill" that would turn this suite on, but it is now generally recognized that ventricular assist is more often than not an effective treatment all by itself to allow the heart to heal itself. Healing is in truth a capacity of the body itself. All that medicine does is facilitate that capacity – doctors don't heal disease, patients heal disease. Or not. I'm still waiting for the breakdown based on this technology that would allow some clever drug designer in some Big Pharma basement lab to design Spontaneous Remission in a Bottle. For which s/he and his/her bosses deserve to get filthy rich. It's just gene expression suiting, after all.
Of course, in order to design such a thing they'd have to approach the 'natural' capacity they're profiling as if it were itself designed for specific telic purpose – healing. And figure out what trigger turns it on in a body ravaged by disease in the first place, and suffering with it all the way to their death bed before waking up one day, putting on their clothes and walking away from all the knives, needles and drugs, completely disease-free.
A design approach could lead to such wonderful discoveries and applications. Not treating physical bodies as if they're enemies to be beaten, pounded, slashed, drugged and poisoned into submission to some exterior doctor's will, but aided in its own battle against diseases usually caused by the way we abuse our environment and our bodies so as to defeat their own multi-system interior-exterior harmonies. It's just a way of looking at things, a method of approach to the phenomena. It would be nice to think that someday biology-as-medicine (the #1 applied science of biology) would actually get around to doing no harm. A time when we can look back at the control-freak cruelty of today's medicine as if it were the medieval torture it really is. And be thankful we finally figured out how to work with nature and its intelligent designs, instead of treating it as an enemy.
It's not going to hurt humanity or science to investigate and explore the possibilities of design. It may offer us real benefits. Those who are frightened of the idea that nature might know more about itself and its purposes than they do can continue to view brute force as the only legitimate response to nature. They've got no business preventing anyone else from exploring or believing there is rhyme and reason in the system.
Comment by Joy — August 5, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I thought you had a degree in bullshit. Projection is a sophisticated way of saying "I know you are but what am I?"
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Alan,
So religious discussion is what you seem to think of as "religious zealotry"?
What I see with my non-projecting mind is atheists, theists, deists, and agnostics discussing the most discussed writings in history, and doing it on a thread that was created as a diversion from another topic on an open thread.
Only a very narrow mind could construe that as "religious zealotry", much less think that Telic Thoughts is where one should go to gawk at religious zealots.
zealotry: Undue or excessive zeal. Fanaticism.
But then, we usually see what we expect to see, no?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Rob R.:
Thanks, Rob! It's one of my faves too, I guess you can tell… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 5, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Alan Fox:
We do not require 'scientific credentials' for contributors or commenters to this blog, Alan. In fact, many of us use pseudonyms for one reason or another, not the least of which have to do with possible backlash against any academic scientist here if it were known s/he is sympathetic to ID. You're not an academic scientist (at least, of the bio-type), yet here you are on a one man witch hunt anyway, demanding credentials before we're allowed to discuss things bio-scientific. That reveals everything anyone needs to know about why we don't require credentials here.
You may go ahead and believe that no one here has any scientific training, since that's obviously what you WANT to believe. We don't mind. See, we aren't the Swamp, or PT, or II, or TO, or any other site on the inter-tubes that prides itself on its collection of credentialled bigots and good ol' boy back-slappers and veritable armies of teenage acolytes.
You say you come here for the religious fervor. While there are many sites out there that could offer you a much more potent fix for your addiction, we don't mind that you enjoy the religious discussions either. Why, it's entirely possible that we have more duly credentialled theologians here than scientists. I wouldn't know, since we don't require religious credentials for participation any more than for scientific participation.
But I will tell you that I've more credentials – in both biology and physics (and biophysics) – than you've offered. You of course have no 'need to know' that, I just thought I'd go ahead and say it. Since you're being such an ass and all.
Comment by Joy — August 5, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
You used zealotry, not me. Your word adds "undue and excessive". Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Alan,
Except that we have evidence that you are seeing something that simply isn't there. Not a single TT principal is a religious zealot.
Edit:
Sorry – you did say zeal, not zealot.
So it really is simply religious discussion that you find so fascinating?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
OK but there is no such "prevention" going on. Any attempt to supress scientific progress is likely to arise from drug companies seeing their profits squeezed. Helicobacter pylori, for example.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Fine. Hard to see how you could enforce such a requirement, anyway. I was just curious to hear if any contibutor here has any biological expertise or qualification.
You asked me and i told you. To clarify I attended the University of Birmingham doing a B Sc. My degree was not good enough for pure research and I did not want a commercial career in the food or brewing industry. If you have indeed credentials in biology, what harm is there in saying so? Is it OK to call you a bit pompous from time to time. You are moderator and I wouldn't want to offend.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
No problem.
As I said, it is something I do not really comprehend, so it is fascinating. Weird, I know, but, there you are.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Alan,
And Telic Thoughts is where you go for fascinating yet incomprehensible displays of religious fervor?
Fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I freely admit to being just part of the peanut gallery. Just a BA in philosophy. But when it comes to interpreting evidence in order to answer the question, "Was it teleological or non-teleological?", we bring with us our own experiences of design, regardless of our expertise in biology, in order to interpret the evidence. In that regard, an engineer would have more expertise than a biologist, and all of us would have just as much expertise as the biologist.
Comment by Bilbo — August 5, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I like the cut of your jib, Bilbo:cool:
PS why don't smileys work for me?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Alan Fox:
I've put forward my training and field applications several times over the years. Health physics, military, research and industrial applications. I could'a gone more toward the petri dish end of things, but I was dazzled by the gizmos and gadgets and extremely epic-size machinery on the physics end – very cool tools, not to mention nifty outfits. I've never been much of one for terminal boredom or juvenile delinquents, teaching isn't me. That's okay. My sister spent a lifetime teaching biology to juvenile delinquents, that's enough dues for one family.
Though I did get to take a genetics course, despite not specializing in molecular biology. Qualified for it because I was engaged in X-ray crystallography at the time, so I jumped at the chance. Not because I was interested in genetics, but because the guest lecturer for that semester was Isaac Asimov. In the end, I didn't learn very much about DNA, since I already knew the basics (and had read Asimov's tome while still in high school). There wasn't much to teach back then anyway, so we explored other cool stuff – like how to design a believable alien. Most enjoyable course I ever took, by far!
We only moderate our own threads, Alan. This is my thread, but as you can see I'm not wasting any time sending anyone to the hole. Won't do that unless things get entirely out of hand. It's just a general announcement thread, semi-open, so it's okay to wander a bit.
Yeah, I can indeed be pompous on occasion. As I mentioned, I have little patience for game-players, juvenile delinquents and total a-holes.
Comment by Joy — August 5, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Evidently, but not exclusively.
See, you are starting to get it. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, no (insert your own bad metaphor)
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Well, nobody's perfect. If the last includes me, you flatter me with juvenile. I only wish…
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
On the other hand, Bilbo, I just re-read this, and can't agree here. This goes back to the point of what the definition of "intelligent" and "design" are. Philosophical and impossible to evaluate other than anthropomorphically. The engineer designs, so he sees design. But living things grow and replicate, something design engineers have never been able to recreate as yet.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Alan Fox:
LOL!!! Well, only those of us old enough to ear-box the whipper-snappers can complain legitimately about juvenile delinquents. Heck, my grandsons are old enough to breed (knock on wood they won't make me a great-granny any time soon, since my latest granddaughter's just 4 months old, the honorifics could get too confusing). Maybe someday I'll even let my hair go gray…
…naw. That's what Miss Clairol is for! §;o)
P.S. the emoticons don't work since the last software update. You'll have to invent your own!
Comment by Joy — August 5, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Hey, I didn't even need a BS meter for this one!
Of course you have a dog in the fight Alan. You just set your dog loose to ridicule ID proponents. Let's look at the most recent topics on your blog: it looks like you ridicule (or link to others ridiculing) Dembski, Behe, Gallien, DaveScot, John Davison etc. And that's just the ones that are on the front page. You even came to this thread just to ridicule Joy's post.
That's ok with me, as I have never taken these issues very seriously. And many's the time I've ridiculed many of the same ID'ers that you have – and more scathingly. No surprise that I'm banned from some of the same blogs as you.
So ridicule away. No bullshit sanctimony necessary.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
chunkdz:
Whoa! I've hit the Big Time!!! Hahahahahahahaha… [wipes tears]. Oh, my goodness.
Y'know, every time the Culture Warriors devote serious time and attention to something I have to say – as if it were the biggest threat to modern civilization EVER – I just have to giggle in my corner. I can see why juvenile delinquents get such an ego-stroke thrill out of game-playing on the internet.
I'm nobody at all, except for me. I know some things, have seen some things, have strong opinions about things. Guess that might make me human (at last, I've finally fooled them ALL! Bwwaaahaaahaa… Now for the Grand Design… [evil grin, turns away from camera towards lightning receptors...]).
I readily advertise my profession, in my profile here and elsewhere on the 'net where I post… "Professional Fool." If they're all the way to devoting whole threads and sub-threads to 'debunking' a professional fool, the war's over. We won. §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 5, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Funny how you also spend so much time waiting for your super slow internet connection to download these threads so that you can play that same game.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 5, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Todd B.:
Not funny at all, Todd. Have to test this connection, the train guys severed it a few days ago when they replaced the crossing in our driveway, now the line is hanging on a tree limb sprayed day-glo orange with a patch job I could'a done with gaff tape myself. Figure they'll fix it proper sometime this week. When it rains I get all of 4800 bps. Even I can't work with that…
Does it bother you that I have internet access? That it's land-line slow? I'm not seeing your problem, sorry (there's only 50 comments to this thread, I can usually go 130 to 150). I'm surfing, checking in here and posting because I can.
If it's a real problem for you that I'm here posting when I should be asleep waiting to rise early for work tomorrow, I'm pretty much retired. Don't have to go anywhere tomorrow, thanks. But I might go on down to the swimming hole on grandson's mountain bike, just to cool off, because I can. It was a hundred degrees here today. Very unusual, not very comfortable (no AC here, baby!). Water's 43º summer or winter, it'll cool you off quick.
…then I'd come back and surf my I-net spots. No television (on purpose), I've seen all the videos and DVDs in stock. I don't understand why you'd have a problem with that, honestly. You'd like me to disappear in a poof of inter-tube plasma or something? Sorry. Ain't gonna happen.
It's after midnight, I was holding an anniversary vigil – have several to note this month. What are YOU doing here?
§;o) Good night.
Comment by Joy — August 6, 2008 @ 12:53 am
August 6th, 2008 at 2:42 am
I live in France. The chance ID will affect me in any way is zero. I only heard about ID in 2005, and quickly formed an opinion that it is not science. But observing the ID movement through Dover, Expelled etc. really has been fascinating. No dog in this fight is true.
Not true. The main reason was to demonstrate that moderation was not a prerequisite for a blog. I also hoped to engage Dave Springer.
Most recent? I haven't put anything on my blog for a year. But I keep it as a bit of history.
I have little respect for Joe Gallien or Dembski. Joe can give as good as he gets, as you will see if you read the comments. Behe, I take little interest in. He has never really engaged with others, and has contributed nothing new to the ID issue in years. I don't think I have said much about him, other than when researching his peer reviewers during the Dover trial. John is a friend of sorts these days. We disagree on his PEH but agree on global warming.
I commented to question the claim being made.
The issues are not serious any more, since Dover. I am not surprised you get banned as your posting manner can be abrasive. Me, I disagree with heavy moderation. It makes UD look sad without anyone having to point it out.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 6, 2008 @ 2:42 am
August 6th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Alan,
You made a prediction that ID would disappear from the public perspective by mid 2010. You have picked your dog and placed your wager.
Granted that you are no Michael Vick. But at least he owned up.
Didn't say ridicule was the main reason. I simply said it was your M.O.
Of course by "most recent", I mean "most recent".
Interesting that you claim to have grown bored with ID over a year ago, yet you still find time to troll ID blogs and mentally masturbate to religious discussions.
I think we agree here.
I disagree. "Edge" was explanatorily weak, but asked some good questions. Like most of ID.
I share your love of John Davison. How is he by the way? I know he was in a bit of pain.
I think John had you pegged when he said:
Smug rhetorical sarcasm is just normal for you, I guess.
We agree here too.
Actually I was banned from UD for my opinion about Dell computers. Little did I know that Spravid Dinger is rather emotionally attached to them.
But in the words of the inimitable John A. Davison:
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
chunkdz,
You'll find John here I have already posted a few links for him. I did point out it was his eightieth birthday a few weeks ago, but nobody bothered to lerave him a note.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 6, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Thanks, I'll drop him a belated happy birthday.
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Hum, I'm curious why my attempt to correct Joy's misunderstanding of my earlier post was holed? I'd hate to accidentally make the same mistake again. It was a direct response to questions posed by one of the moderators and was in line with the discussion so far.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 6, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Todd B.:
I started to reply, then got called away for several hours, came back and read it again. The only "point" was your poor attempt at remote mind reading and psychoanalysis, which wasn't very impressive and deserved no response at all.
Then don't. No one is forcing you to be here, Todd. It's a big, wide web out there, you might feel a lot more comfortable someplace where your abilities are more appreciated. The Swamp, perhaps, or The Incredible Doctor PeeZed's Uncanny Film Festival and Klan Meeting.
If you wish to participate here then pay attention to the sort of behaviors that get your comments holed. You'll last longer.
Comment by Joy — August 6, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 2:29 am
I guess I can assume that, though
I am not going to. Am I justified in assuming that is because there are none?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 7, 2008 @ 2:29 am
August 7th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Is there a FAQ on what behavior is required from posters, and does it apply to all posters equally?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 7, 2008 @ 2:34 am
August 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Alan Fox:
I explained the situation previously. It does not look like anyone else cares to offer you any personal ammunition for this line of attack. I've offered [some of] mine only because I am well beyond the fear of getting burned at the stake for heresy by torch-toting orthodoxen. Like your friends at the Swamp, for instance.
If that situation makes you feel like you're wasting your talents, I'll tell you what I told Todd. There are much more accommodating websites out there, we won't mind if you'd prefer those.
This has been explained before, you must have missed it. The 'rules' are to keep it civil, most adult humans understand what that means. I realize that some of our critics pride themselves on their oh-so brilliant ways of ignoring civil discourse completely, and I have warned repeatedly that I have very little patience for delinquency. Thus far you and Zach have managed to stay off the "look out for sockpuppets" list, which is good. It does not excuse ongoing name-calling and derisive insults posted concurrently on peanut gallery throw-aways on other websites. Such things remind us civility is just an act.
We moderate our own threads, so it's a good idea to remember whose thread it is when planning your game strategy. Some of us are more or less tolerant than others. If all you've got are insults, don't bother. It's a total waste of bandwidth no matter whose thread it is. If you perceive responses couched in terms that bristle with 'beware', it's best to step back. Despite the whining and caterwauling, no one's comments are so precious on the literary scale to escape the hole if that's where they are deemed to belong.
You can still read Todd's post, you just have to go to the hole to read it. You may not think the tone is insulting enough to deserve holing, but your opinion isn't the one that counts. It can inform you of the sort of thing that crosses my line, how far you shouldn't go just to have the last word. Or not.
Comment by Joy — August 7, 2008 @ 11:47 am
August 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Well, I hear what you say, Joy.
So smileys work in blockquotes
Comment by Alan Fox — August 7, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am
LOL…JAD is the man!
and so is DaveScot…
a potent combination!
if only they could get along
Comment by computerist — August 10, 2008 @ 8:58 am
August 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hey Mod's, you think we can dedicate a thread to our pal JAD?
Here's another quote from JAD, note the uppercase letters after losing patience here on this thread:
"DARWINIAN MYSTICISM IN ALL ITS MANY FORMS IS THE MOST FAILED HYPOTHESIS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. IT HAS NEVER ACOMMODATED ANYTHING MORE THAN THE PRODUCTION OF VARIETIES AND SUBSPECEIS. MANY LIFE FORMS CAN NOT EVEN EXHIBIT THAT."
LMAO!
I wonder what happened to Peter Borger, his article on Genetic Redundancy closed the curtains for Darwinian Evolution…I wonder what new excuses DE has come up with pertaining to that.
Comment by computerist — August 10, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
For your entertainment, here is another one:
Comment by computerist — August 10, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
computerist, you are aware that Davison has a blog of his own now, aren't you? I'd give you the link, but can't seem to find it.
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
The JAD
Comment by Rob R. — August 10, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Hi Joy and Rob,
Yes, I have been keeping up with JAD since his incarnation on the web. I am well aware of his blog but his fingerprints are left at brainstorms and most of it from then on is just a repeat. The sad thing would be if Dembski sold the domain name and deleted any/all the commentary from the server and/or stored it some place else.
Comment by computerist — August 10, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Wedding Dresses Secretaries In Short Skirts Stockings Tight Braless Shirts…
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…
Trackback by Wedding Dresses Secretaries In Short Skirts Stockings Tight Braless Shirts — August 16, 2008 @ 9:43 pm