Hey Cobra Snake (kyle)

When I first encountered Fred on the Internet I found him very annoying and obnoxious, but after several years of reflection and therapy his style doesn't bother me much anymore.Fred often participates in many discussions at the same time, and I suppose because he is rushed you often find that his responses don't really address what you said. What really annoyed me, though, was when he would add rhetorical jabs to a nonsensical answer. A typical Fred interaction of this nature might go like this (this abbreviated example isn't really fair to Fred, but I'm just trying to get the idea across):

Me: "2LOT only applies to closed systems and so can't be used to argue against the possibility of evolution. --Percy"

​

Fred: "Precip [as he would affectionately call me], your slip is showing. You don't understand 2LOT. Entropy decreases are impossible. Try again. --Fred"

On the one hand you're left asking yourself what's the point of debating with someone who isn't bothering to read what you write, and on the other you feel you can't ignore it because he's so smug and obnoxious.Fred is very persistent, very knowledgeable, very talented and resourceful in debate, and it's extremely puzzling that someone so bright could possess so many strong misperceptions.--Percy

Your reply reminds me that I would like to use The Great Debate forum for formal debates. Replies would be by turn between two opponents with moderation by two moderators, one evolutionist and one Creationist. Moderators would post comments after each reply in an attempt to a) give feedback; b) provide guidance; c) keep discussion focused; d) keep discussion understandable by the average person. Moderators would not be permitted to post content.Debate would be limited to a certain number of posts by each side, maybe 10 or so. At the end of the debate the two moderators would each summarize, assess, and choose a winner. I expect that'll mean a tie most of the time.There would be a parallel thread to the debate that everyone who wants to comment could post to.How about a debate between you and Fred on Haldane's dilemma. Or if you feel this topic is exhausted (or has exhausted you ) then perhaps a different topic.This opportunity is available to anyone, of course. I suggest it to you first because you already have a hot topic with Fred.--Percy

Hi Scott,I looked at the debate with Jep, seems like the moderator lost control over that one. The Haldane debate with Fred was unmoderated.To everyone:The format for the debate that I envision includes feedback and comments from both the Creationist and the evolutionist moderator after each exchange. If anyone is interested in a one-on-one debate in The Great Debate forum please reply on this thread and include your choice of topic.--Percy

Noah's flood is fine, but I'd like to narrow the topic. How about hydrodynamic sorting? I assume you'd want the con side, and if that's okay with you (if not please suggest another topic) then...We need a Creationist to take the pro side. Tranquility Base? TrueCreation? Anyone else?--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Any debates and discussions here must follow the Forum Guidelines.--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

I can't comment about whether Fred was properly notified or not, but I find much to agree with in the second half of your post. Dull, dispassionate debates aren't very interesting, but the zings and fireworks of a Fred-style debate often end up completely obscuring any serious points. Hence, while I'm inclined to yield a bit of rein to spirited debaters like Scott and Fred, they'd still have to tone it down quite a bit.--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

SLPx writes:

---

I am not sure where this odd belief that individuals with legitimate academic credentials are supposed to be able to suppress their emotions came from. Why are such individuals supposed to sit back and take such verbal abuse? Do nothing when their characters are impugned? Some - those with much more patience than I - can sit back and take it and not respond in kind. I can't. Maybe I should have my meal card stamped "NO DESSERT"?

---

This is a good point, but if I can offer a suggestion, I felt the problem I had following the Haldane debate was due to two problems:

• The intermixing of the emotional portions with the discussion/information portions; and
• The resulting emotional way in which the discussion/information portions were presented, with more more regard given to acerbic asides than to clarity.

Just one opinion. --Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
I would agree. And I especially like the fact that you refer to me as "XXX".

---

Whatever are you talking about! Oh, well, caught once again forgetting the argument to my emacs macros.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-03-2002]