I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

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.

I have requested a new thread specifically for the purpose of presenting my several unanswered challenges to the Darwinian fairy tale. If such a thread does not appear it will provide a clear and unambiguous answer to my request. It will also indicate that my challenges can not be answered. Either way I win and "brainstorms" loses. It is as simple as that. I have no further comment. Carry on.

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.

"You are all nothing but a bunch of degenerate, unfulfilled, groupthinking gossips, wallowing, slipping, and sliding around in your own odiferous effluvia."

LOL…JAD is the man!

and so is DaveScot…

a potent combination!

if only they could get along

So smileys work in blockquotes

I am not going to. Am I justified in assuming that is because there are none

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.

Is there a FAQ on what behavior is required from posters, and does it apply to all posters equally?

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.

If you wish to participate here then pay attention to the sort of behaviors that get your comments holed.

Is there a FAQ on what behavior is required from posters, and does it apply to all posters equally?