Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Obfuscates In This Town?
rosa
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 38 (151116)
10-19-2004 2:23 PM


The word "deceit" comes closer, I think, to Buzzsaw's behavior.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 10-19-2004 4:43 PM rosa has not replied
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2004 11:53 PM rosa has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 38 (151142)
10-19-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
10-19-2004 12:33 PM


Re: Is it obfuscation though
quote:
Not answering questions is just a single tactic in an array of tactics that Buzz uses, diversion being another favorite. Obfuscation of the issues under discussion is the general result.
What he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 10-19-2004 12:33 PM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 38 (151143)
10-19-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by rosa
10-19-2004 2:23 PM


quote:
The word "deceit" comes closer, I think, to Buzzsaw's behavior.
See, now I think that is going too far.
I could be wrong, but Buz strikes me as being fairly non self-aware and greatly invested in protecting his ego.
I do not think he plots ways to deceive. I think he believes he is arguing not that differently than anybody else, although it is clear that he uses all sorts of tactics to avoid direct any direct discussion at all.
I think it is simply the way he is and he is not interested in changing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by rosa, posted 10-19-2004 2:23 PM rosa has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 38 (151204)
10-19-2004 8:43 PM


I know this is suppose to be a short thread and I don't intend to make it otherwise, but before it gets closed, I hope I can submit a post in answer to Schraf's allegations in her recent post. I have returned from being outa town on business and am preparing it now. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 10-19-2004 8:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 20 of 38 (151208)
10-19-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
10-19-2004 8:43 PM


do we get right of reply or will you do your normal cut'n'run?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2004 8:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2004 9:56 PM CK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 38 (151215)
10-19-2004 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
10-19-2004 9:50 AM


You were asked to show that you could in that other thread you started about yourself, and you were unable to.
Good example of obfuscation.
1. Read the op. It was not to be about myself, but to address the belittling insultive and meanspirited allegations you directed towards me in another thread.
2. Unable is relevant. Mike came to my defense in post 103 of that thread and offered his take on the whole thing, stating that I had debated in good faith, answered adequately and was being unjustly singled out in the charges leveled.
3. In post 125 of that same thread, Admin Moose even stated that he liked the op and gave it some consideration for post of month. Both you and Percy ran on with generalized personal charges directed at me rather than addressing the specifics of that op which was suppose to be the thread topic and which I asked Percy to address and he did not.
You also tend to drop out of threads when the going gets tough, only to pop up later, in another thread, to say the same thing that was refuted a while back as though that other thread had never happened.
This's how, imo, both you and Percy used some of your own obfuscation
tactics throughout that thread with a number of these generalized charges, spouting them out on the www about me rather than sticking to citing specific threads and posts where these charges could be shown to be true.
Do you really want me to start pulling up examples and posting them here?
That would be interesting indeed. It'll make this a nice long thread because it'll include a whole bunch of input by me of the obfuscation and stuff I have had to deal with by some of my obfuscating and otherwise unscrupulous counterparts.
The charge that I have tried to confuse issues in discussion with you in order to avoid answering direct questions is an interesting one.
Care to back it up?
See above.
No, Buz, we don't "all do our share".
Yes, madear, I'm afraid we do. I've admitted I've likely done it some and you're the one who now refuses to admit it. I've shown above that you indeedy do do it.
I will agree with you that jar became mighty coy and cute
Oh, so with Jar, it's mighty coy and cute but with ole buz it's very bad conduct, indeed! That figures!
However, for the most part he is very, very clear and responds fully, with examples and facts to back up his claims.
Be very thankful you aren't debating him about Biblical issues.
I am sure it makes you angry buz, and I'm sorry that you are angry.
Yah, sure, Schraf, sure. Then you go on to keeping me angry at you with the following false charges:
You are so utterly resistant to the idea that you might be wrong that you aren't even aware, I don't think, of the tactics you use to avoid answering questions and debating in good faith.
I think you have been honing them your entire life, and quite possibly have never had them pointed out to you before.
When I'm right, I needn't apologize. I try hard to make sure I'm right before I post so as not to need to apologize or concede. Therein, imo, lies the problem with you people. You, being my ideological counterparts GET IRRITATED AND UPTIGHT WHEN I'M RIGHT! You don't like getting bested on occasion in debate here in town by this undegreed ole creo alien fart. When shown wrong, I concede. I conceded in the other thread that I wasn't in tune with science. I posted documentation with a link that a noted degreed creo agreed with my position. Percy arrogantly deemed that as irrevelant, with no specific explanation addressing the link as to why. Instead he ran on with more generalized charges, undocumented with specifics. He lowered himself to citing willowtree's very meanspirited insults of me and my mother in post 139 which I angrily and soundly refuted in post 176.
Percy eloquently, patiently explained it all to you, but he can't make you drink.
Yes indeed, void of specifics.
I know you think that I pick on you, but I think it's because you are so...unrepentant.
Mmmm, you're a poor preacher, woman. Inspire me with the evidence concerning the charges, implying that I do a whole lota obfuscating here in town, and then we talk about repentance. After all, that's the topic, isn't it? Admin Ned already questions your charges on this, so it appears you have your work cut out. LOL!
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-19-2004 09:09 PM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 10-19-2004 9:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2004 4:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 10-20-2004 9:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 38 (151216)
10-19-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by CK
10-19-2004 8:55 PM


do we get right of reply or will you do your normal cut'n'run?
That depends on admin. You could start a new thread showing that I am a notable cutnrunner, if that's what you think I do. I'm very busy and may take time, but I try to get back to responding to stuff of substance that needs a response.
If admin allows the space, I welcome any response by anyone to my post to Schraf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 10-19-2004 8:55 PM CK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 38 (151230)
10-19-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by rosa
10-19-2004 2:23 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word "deceit" comes closer, I think, to Buzzsaw's behavior.
Put up or shut up. OK, rosa?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by rosa, posted 10-19-2004 2:23 PM rosa has not replied

rosa
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 38 (151267)
10-20-2004 12:50 AM


Buzzsaw:
What, I wonder, shall I "put up"... it was only a personal opinion.
And, I will indeed "shut up" now.
That was all I meant to say, Buzzsaw.
I lurk on these forums; I do not have background knowledge to enter most of these debates.
It just mildly distressed an old retired editor, you know -- repeated use of inappropriate words or phrases.
(Wasn't it sweet how Shraf defended you ?! And - the right word for that sort of behavior is......?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 10-20-2004 9:29 AM rosa has not replied
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2004 11:12 AM rosa has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 38 (151287)
10-20-2004 2:18 AM


When to close this (short subject) topic
Buz, IMO the call is yours. Want it closed? Make the request and hopefully some admin will catch it and do the job.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2004 12:16 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 38 (151304)
10-20-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
10-19-2004 9:51 PM


To deal with the numbered points
The issue Schraf brought up is whether you were able to straightforwardly discuss your assertion that evolution was no more falsifiable than the supernatural. The fact is that you did not.
1) The question of whether you obfuscate is indeed part of the issue of the OP. To that extent it is about you.
2) Mike's post does not specifically deal with the issue that you refused to address. We can't even tell that Mike was aware of that specific issue. Most damningly however is the fact that if Mike's opinion was as you have presented it and if it were true the proof would be in the thread - and it would appear before Mike's post. So why not cite that instead ?
3) The issue only came into the thread after the original post do any comments on the original post are a complet irrelevance.
SO points 1 and 3 are irrelevant and point 2 can be dismissed. On the other hand the failure to actually cite an answer is a strong indication that Schraf's assertion is true and that you know that it is.
On the evidence then we can conclude that faced with a truthful criticism you indulge in your usual tactics of evasion and false accusation.
The rest of the post is filled with falsehoods. If you were prepared to admit when you were wrong you wouldn't resort to evasions so often. If you checked your claims thoroughly you wouldn't even need to resort to evasion - you would never have made assertions you couldn't support in the first place.
And if you can find any cases where anyone gets "irritated and uptight" because you happen to be right I will be very surprised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2004 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 38 (151320)
10-20-2004 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
10-19-2004 9:51 PM


Buzsaw, can you please point me to the post in the "When Buz Quits The Thread" thread in which you forthrightly and directly address a question (the falsafiabilty of the supernatural) as you were challenged to by Percy? Here is a sample of the runaround you gave everyone in order to avoid answering directly. Remember, this was well into the thread and many posts after you made the claim that "evolution is no more falsifiable that the supernatural". You were shown to be wrong about that by several people but continued to defend the statement:
Percy: Sure, Buzz. As I said earlier, we have the example of falsifiability of the supernatural right in this thread. Go to it. Defend yourself by providing an example of a forthright response to the rebuttals. Show us that just this one time you can actually do it. I know it goes against all your instincts and everything you believe in, but come on Buzz, give it a try, just this once.
quote:
Buz: It's off topic to do this and being not schooled in this, all I can provide is what I can dig up from others more schooled than I.
Percy: By the way, as I said at least a couple times, requesting that you reply forthrightly to the falsification issue was intended as an opportunity for you to demonstrate that you could actually respond forthrightly to an issue. I specifically instructed that it wasn't to be interpreted as a change of topic, and that respondents should comment on how well you met the challenge of responding forthrightly, and not on whether they agreed with the content. Assuming you read where I said this, I can only conclude that your evasive approach to discussion continues unabated.
quote:
Buz: Post 45 is a divergent from the topic. You people seem to want to focus on this because you think you've found a way to make me look silly rather than on my op and those cut and run charges. You and Percy are doing you dead level best to draw me into this science debate when all I did was answer crashfrog with a simple off the cuff opinion on his statement and I ainta gona be drawn into your trap. Allowing you to do this to me is also not good debate tactics if you want to talk about debate skills and imo, breeches the forum guidelines.
Percy: Wrong. Saying this now for the fourth time, I requested that you support your "Evolution is no more disprovable than the supernatural" statement in a forthright manner to demonstrate that you understand what "responding forthrightly" means, and to demonstrate that you're capable of doing so. And I instructed members to respond to whether you achieved those goals, and not to the actual content.
As I have said over and over and over again, Buzz, it is your behavior, not your viewpoint, that is the problem. Your unconstructive approach is highlighted merely by the fact that a couple of paragraphs ago I was actually repeating something for the fourth time because you have yet to respond constructively to it.
Additionally, you refused to address or even acknowledge the several examples I posted of times where you cut and run in threads, even though you repeatedly demanded to be shown times that you had done so:
quote:
Buz: Why can't you and Schraf stop the generalized insolence about my conduct and work with the content of my op by pasting each item and documenting specific discrepancies on my part concerning each.
For goodness sake, buz, I HAVE DONE THIS.
In fact, I did it 100 posts ago, and you didn't reply.
You complained in another post about a lack of specific examples, and I provided post numbers AGAIN, and you didn't reply.
So, here they are FOR THE THIRD TIME.
quote:
From message #134:
Buz: I have asked you to go to my op and critique specifics I have posted in my defense, but no, all you care to do is malign my character by these generalized bogus charges that you have not been willing to document and that my accusers have failed to document also, though they tried their best.
But I gave you specific examples in posts #54 and #59 of times that you refused to answer specific questions related to your claims, dismissed relevant issues out of hand with no accompanying explanation, and then just stopped answering altogether.
I even provided cut n pastes of the actual exchanges, post numbers, forum titles, etc.
Why don't you address those examples?

"[Saddam] had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."
-ex-chief US arms inspector David Kay

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2004 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 38 (151321)
10-20-2004 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by rosa
10-20-2004 12:50 AM


quote:
(Wasn't it sweet how Shraf defended you ?! And - the right word for that sort of behavior is......?)
According to Buz, I am nothing but a "huzzie".
It won't matter how fairly I treat him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by rosa, posted 10-20-2004 12:50 AM rosa has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 38 (151342)
10-20-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by rosa
10-20-2004 12:50 AM


What, I wonder, shall I "put up"... it was only a personal opinion.
And, I will indeed "shut up" now.
As an old retired editor, you should have enough sense and srupples to know what you're talking about and have some evidence at hand before posting on the www for all to read that someone is a deceitful person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by rosa, posted 10-20-2004 12:50 AM rosa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by CK, posted 10-20-2004 11:15 AM Buzsaw has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 30 of 38 (151343)
10-20-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
10-20-2004 11:12 AM


how about you answer 27? that post seems to get to the heart of the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2004 11:12 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2004 12:13 PM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024