Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fred Williams goes down in flames... again
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 42 (5072)
02-19-2002 10:37 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 02-19-2002 10:58 AM derwood has replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 02-21-2002 9:49 AM derwood has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 42 (5073)
02-19-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
02-19-2002 10:37 AM


Fred's a member here, but last time we exchanged emails he said he was very busy playing a moderator role at OCW (Organization of Creationist Websites). But I suggest you let Fred know you've posted a rebuttal here and perhaps he'll reply. Naturally, just as you've already done, lengthy rebuttals should be linked to rather than posted in messages.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 02-19-2002 10:37 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by derwood, posted 02-19-2002 11:02 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 4 by Fred Williams, posted 02-19-2002 4:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 3 of 42 (5074)
02-19-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
02-19-2002 10:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Fred's a member here, but last time we exchanged emails he said he was very busy playing a moderator role at OCW (Organization of Creationist Websites). But I suggest you let Fred know you've posted a rebuttal here and perhaps he'll reply. Naturally, just as you've already done, lengthy rebuttals should be linked to rather than posted in messages.
--Percy

That is interesting - he denied being a moderator at OCW after it was pointed out that the 'moderator' had preferentially gutted and deleted posts critical of Williams and his hero ReMine.
I will let him know, and I have have linked my rebuttal on several sites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 02-19-2002 10:58 AM Percy has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 4 of 42 (5087)
02-19-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
02-19-2002 10:58 AM


quote:
Fred's a member here, but last time we exchanged emails he said he was very busy playing a moderator role at OCW (Organization of Creationist Websites).
Howdy Percy,
OCW is now defunct, and is now The CreationWeb. I am longer affiliated with that board. I as well as a number of other Christians have disagreements with the way the board is run (reasons pertaining to its status as a Christian-sponsored board) and have chosen to no longer participate there.
Regarding Scott’s allegation, I’ll only respond to this once because creationists have become all too familiar with Scott’s game, which is to start flame wars on discussion boards by among other things making false accusations. When left unchecked he usually succeeds in running off anyone who is willing to take the time to write well-thought-out comments. There are good reasons why Scott has been kicked off of at least 3 internet boards I know of.
To set the record straight, I moderated at OCW for about 2 or 3 days, then became a board Super Administrator for the 2-3 weeks before the current Administrator pulled the plug (he had been the previous board Administrator but had stepped down; he wasn’t happy with the changes, and since he owned the URL name he decided to take full possession of it and reclaimed the board; contrary to some comments floating around, he was never forced out, in fact it came as a complete surprise to me when he stepped down). The reason I chose to stop moderating was primarily because I didn’t have the time, and in part because I wasn’t comfortable being anonymous. We had also found a creation scientist (who shall remain anonymous) to fill the Mod 3 role shortly before I relinquished that responsibility (he remained Mod 3 for the 2-3 weeks before the plug was pulled). I was then asked by the new Super Administrator, who also has since left the board after the plug was pulled, to help out as a co-Super Administrator, which I agreed to do because I knew this role would not be very time-consuming.
As is this case on most boards, the user ID reflected my Admin status clearly. Moreover, I never denied being a moderator, and when asked, stated at OCW that I had indeed moderated for a few days before stepping into the Admin role. The gnat that Scott is straining stems from my not explicitly claiming to be Moderator 3, which should have been obvious, since Mod 3 was the only active moderator other the then Super Admin (who posted his name when he made edits).
That is all I wish to say regarding the former OCW and what happened there. I read Scott's linked comments and look forward to posting a response within the week (I hope, I’m still very busy at work).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 02-19-2002 10:58 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 02-20-2002 10:16 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 42 (5153)
02-20-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Fred Williams
02-19-2002 4:45 PM


*YAWN*
Williams is very good at making slanderous charges, but he is very bad at supporting them.
I suspect thart any actual reply will consist of aspersion casting, insults, and a continued insistence that Haldnae's dilemma is real and unsolved. Thats all he can do.
Of course, Williams complaining that I engage in flame wars is a gem - anyone with a hint of common sense can take a look at his ridiculous web site and see the irony of that charge.
BTW - what 'at least 3' boards did you have in mind?
You don't get banned anywhere because you only stay on boards that you have a modicum of control of (OCW), or that do not ban people (T.O.).
Your implication that the new 'OCW' board is less than Christian smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.
But, thats the best the virulent creationist can muster...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Fred Williams, posted 02-19-2002 4:45 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-20-2002 11:54 AM derwood has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 6 of 42 (5160)
02-20-2002 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by derwood
02-20-2002 10:16 AM


Percy - can you get this entire thread shunted into some siding where they can abuse each other's integrity without bothering the rest of us? I doubt if this could be counted as a "Great Debate" in any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 02-20-2002 10:16 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 02-20-2002 1:36 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 42 (5183)
02-20-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mister Pamboli
02-20-2002 11:54 AM


Golly, I did not realize that we have an arbiter of all things worthy here.
Of course, you can always NOT READ THE POSTS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-20-2002 11:54 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 02-20-2002 2:59 PM derwood has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 42 (5184)
02-20-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by derwood
02-20-2002 1:36 PM


Hey SLP any idea where JP is hiding out these days?
He quit out of a conversation with me a few weeks back wondering if you had any idea where he is trolling now so I can go and throw the proverbial gauntlet down.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 02-20-2002 1:36 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 9:01 PM joz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 42 (5196)
02-20-2002 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by joz
02-20-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Hey SLP any idea where JP is hiding out these days?
He quit out of a conversation with me a few weeks back wondering if you had any idea where he is trolling now so I can go and throw the proverbial gauntlet down.....

ditto
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 02-20-2002 2:59 PM joz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 42 (5214)
02-21-2002 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
02-19-2002 10:37 AM


SLP,
Do you have a kink to the two papers please, also, if possible, a link to Haldanes 1957 paper.
Many thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 02-19-2002 10:37 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 02-21-2002 10:42 AM mark24 has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 42 (5218)
02-21-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mark24
02-21-2002 9:49 AM


I know of no links to Haldane's 1957 paper, for the simple fact that it came out in 1957! I have a hard copy, and can mail a copy to you if you'd like.
As for the Rice and Chippindale paper, it can be found at the Science website (Science | AAAS) if you have a subscription.
The Genetics paper is available for free at the Genetics website. I don't have a link handy, but I will try to find it.
As for JP, I don't kow where he trolls now, though I did notice that he reposted the same stuff he posted here at the Baptist Board site.
I try to stay away from him. He is a psychotic, probably dangerous individual. He posted my home address and the name of one of my family members (as well as doing this to at least one other person I know of and possibly a third).
He's a wack job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 02-21-2002 9:49 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 02-21-2002 4:23 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 02-21-2002 4:58 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 02-21-2002 9:28 PM derwood has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 42 (5234)
02-21-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by derwood
02-21-2002 10:42 AM


SLP,
Thanks for the info, I won't trouble you to send me a copy of Haldanes '57, but thanks for the offer. I HAVE seen it online, but frustratingly can't find it again.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 02-21-2002 10:42 AM derwood has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 42 (5237)
02-21-2002 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by derwood
02-21-2002 10:42 AM


Two things. First:

SLP writes:
I know of no links to Haldane's 1957 paper, for the simple fact that it came out in 1957! I have a hard copy, and can mail a copy to you if you'd like.
Can you scan this in? If not I wish you could snail-mail it to me, but I can't make my home address available, since then I could scan it in myself.
Anyway, if you *do* scan it in at around 150 dots/inch (or better) and email to me I can convert it to characters, add it to our reference library, and then people can do copy-n-paste's from it.
Second, I think Mister Pamboli's comment that yours and Fred's relative styles have the potential to send this into a flame war have merit. Would you be willing to edit your response so that it focuses more on Fred's issues and less on Fred?
To all: In this debate feelings tend to run high, and it is all too easy to conclude that the motives and strategies of your opponents are less than honorable. That's why rule 2 of the guidelines exists. If your evidence and arguments are strong they do not need, indeed are weakened by, derogatory and self-serving comments about your opponents.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 02-21-2002 10:42 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by bretheweb, posted 02-24-2002 5:07 PM Percy has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 42 (5263)
02-21-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by derwood
02-21-2002 10:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLP:
As for JP, I don't kow where he trolls now, though I did notice that he reposted the same stuff he posted here at the Baptist Board site.
I try to stay away from him. He is a psychotic, probably dangerous individual. He posted my home address and the name of one of my family members (as well as doing this to at least one other person I know of and possibly a third).
He's a wack job.
John Paul:
Seeing that it is obvious SLP (slimey little prick) is having difficulties with reality so let me clarify a few things.
When SLP says, "He posted my home address...", he doesn't mean that I posted "Hey, this is SLP's address (followed by the address)...". Because if he did, that would be a lie. Common sense would tell us an address is something you can put on an envelope and with proper postage it will be delivered to that specific residence. That being said, if someone wanted to send SLP a letter that could not have been done from what I posted, even if they could figure out that I did post anything related to SLP. I am very positive what I did post and how I posted it, was only detectable by people with that knowledge.
As for,"...and the name of one of my family members"- I don't know any of his family member's names, so I could not have done so intentionally. Your middle intial is L, you act like a girl, with Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue", in mind, I inferred that was YOUR middle name.
Then we have this blatant lie pertaining to home addresses:..."(as well as doing this to at least one other person I know of and possibly a third)."
Just pure fabrication.
He also left out that an evolutionist posted the name, address, telephone number, and system admin's name- just like a postal label. Conveniently he forgot to mention that someone (an evo) called my company and spewed BS. About any alleged threats, you and your ilk should learn the difference between implied & inferred.
But I'm the psychotic one. And if I am psychotic- what idiot would spew inflamatory BS about a psychotic person that knew where he worked and lived?
And yes I am dangerous. I have a free and open mind. My search for the truth, which is what science is all about, will not be constrained by the narrow vision of materialistic naturalism.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 02-21-2002 10:42 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 02-21-2002 10:08 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 16 by joz, posted 02-21-2002 10:12 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 31 by Jeff, posted 02-25-2002 1:46 PM John Paul has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 42 (5266)
02-21-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by John Paul
02-21-2002 9:28 PM


Did you miss the last paragraph of percys last post JP?
It was a pretty clear instruction to everyone to cut the ad hom attacks....
Stonehenge and ID JP, you`ve got a post to answer.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 02-21-2002 9:28 PM John Paul 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