Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hey Cobra Snake (kyle)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 16 of 23 (10661)
05-30-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cobra_snake
05-30-2002 12:04 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cobra_snake, posted 05-30-2002 12:04 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

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


Message 17 of 23 (10662)
05-30-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cobra_snake
05-30-2002 12:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't really see what's so wrong with Fred's site, as long as you realize that its purpose for the most part is not to convey scientific information.
That is certainly not how it appears to the interested layman. But I agree - it contains almost no scientific information and what such information there is is for the most part used incorrectly.
quote:
"As for 'accusing' him of many things, I actually provide simple documentation for the serious charges (hell - his laughable "as well = as well as" bit is right there in print!)"
All I'm suggesting is that maybe you should have informed Williams of your response, because you made some pretty serious "documented" accusations against his competence and honesty. Sorry if I sound mean, it is really just a simple suggestion.
Mean?
quote:
"Whatever you say, doc. I look forward to your handwave of that silly claim you made at the baptist board. You really are weak on genetics. Its amazing you got a PhD in a semi-related field."
I agree that Fred should not say things like that. However, like I said before, you are not exactly the high prince of fair and reasonable discussion:
"I have pointed out your incompetence again"
"Let the aspersion casting and obfuscation begin!"
"Your intellectual and scientific superior"
There is a little thing called context.
My message titled "I have pointed out your incompetence again"?
A reply to Fred's message titled:
"I have refuted you yet again"
A message which contained the following text:
"May the handwaving begin!"
Hence my reply:
"Let the aspersion casting and obfuscation begin!"
As for my 'signature' ("Your intellectual and scientific superior"), that is a goog-natured dig. You see, Fred often signed his messages with things like "Your idol", so I signed mine with something that was at least grounded in reality.
But enough about that.
quote:
If you are indeed Fred's "intellectual and scientific superior", then perhaps you should tone down the level of mean-spirited remarks.
I think my CV speaks for itself. I'm no Nobel Laureate, but then, I don't claim or imply that I am (or should be)... Mean-spirited? How's this:
"You had no hope because your claims were
thoroughly bogus."
"You need to go to the gym more, its a better workout
than waving your hands at your computer."
"...don't read anything more into this than what it is, common
courtesy, even to someone who is a complete bonehead)."
Those are the MILD ones. Fred reaps what he sows. Of course, like all 'Christian' creationists, Fred justifies his nature with biblical lore:
"The Bible *does* justify various methods of communicating
with morons. Some need to be told they are morons. You qualify as one such individual. "
Yes, I will watch my tone...
quote:
If you disagree with what Fred wrote about you in the above e-mail message, then why should you resort to such low blows? Regardless of the accuracy or intelligence of Fred's comments, you should be able to keep your cool if you are indeed his "intellectual and scientific superior".
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"?
quote:
"Of course, Fred NEVER checked the BB to see my response; he never addressed my questions there; he never responded HERE to his questions for me that I answered!"
Maybe he was busy?
He was not too busy to post his 'questions' in the first place. He was not too busy to request that I specifically address his post.
Was he?
quote:
"After dealing with the likes of Fred and Karl Crawford and Walter "You misrepresent me" ReMine, should it really surprise anyone that folks get a bit testy?"
As you stated before, if you are Fred's "intellectual and scientific superior" then you should not have to lower yourself to whatever you deem are Fred's standards. Don't you think that is a pretty reasonable suggestion? I try to be reasonable.
You do? Is that why you praised Fred's site for being "insulting"?
Well, enough of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cobra_snake, posted 05-30-2002 12:04 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 05-30-2002 5:31 PM derwood has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 23 (10665)
05-30-2002 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by derwood
05-30-2002 4:44 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by derwood, posted 05-30-2002 4:44 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 05-31-2002 2:16 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 19 of 23 (10753)
05-31-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
05-30-2002 5:31 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[b]
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[/QUOTE]
I would agree. And I especially like the fact that you refer to me as "XXX".
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 05-30-2002 5:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 05-31-2002 4:46 PM derwood has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 20 of 23 (10762)
05-31-2002 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by derwood
05-31-2002 2:16 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 05-31-2002 2:16 PM derwood has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 23 (11455)
06-13-2002 1:50 AM


"That is certainly not how it appears to the interested layman."
Fred even tells the visitors that his site is not, for the most part, about documenting serious scientific evidence.
"There is a little thing called context."
Well, I didn't know about the context. Now that I do, your message doesn't seem so bad. However:
"Of course, it is far more informative to read my relaity based response to Williams first laughabvle attempts at 'refutation""
"I will be tearing down Williams pseudoscinetific gibberish in a day or two."
"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."
I think it seems fairly obvious that you have been the creator of some mud-slinging and mean-spirited comments. Percy also seems to agree with my assesment here, so maybe you should argue with him instead.
"I think my CV speaks for itself. I'm no Nobel Laureate, but then, I don't claim or imply that I am (or should be)... Mean-spirited? How's this:"
I think it is fairly obvious that both you and Fred are guilty of unneccesary slander. However, you WERE the one that brought it up:
"Apparently, you don't see Williams for what he is, nor have you seen him in action on the internet, where he makes the most obnoxious, rude 'evo' look like Mr.Rogers."
If you are going to accuse Williams of rude behavior, I would think that you would make sure your own behavior was in check. As it stands, both of you seem equally guilty and neither should be pointing fingers at the other- rather you should try to make peace as well as you can.
"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."
It seems to me that being "intellectual" would mean that you would generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, especially before accusing your opponent of the same.
"Is that why you praised Fred's site for being "insulting"?"
You're right- "insulting" was the wrong word. What I meant was "teasing" in a playful sort of way, but that sounds kinda gay, don't you think?

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 06-14-2002 2:23 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

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


Message 22 of 23 (11598)
06-14-2002 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cobra_snake
06-13-2002 1:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"That is certainly not how it appears to the interested layman."
Fred even tells the visitors that his site is not, for the most part, about documenting serious scientific evidence.
Maybe so, but he does (or did, anyway) post to various groups about how he has 'disproven' this or that from time to time. For example:
Fred wrote in this thread, "New series at "Evolution, a Fairy Tale for Grownups", in the newsgroup alt.fan.rush.limbaugh:
"Regarding Genetics, I wrote an article that provides overwhelming evidence we could not have evolved from a common ancestor with a chimp. Note that a leading Geneticist in personal correspondence has confirmed the math and acknowledged its a "serious problem" for the theory."
quote:
"There is a little thing called context."
Well, I didn't know about the context. Now that I do, your message doesn't seem so bad. However:
"Of course, it is far more informative to read my relaity based response to Williams first laughabvle attempts at 'refutation""
"I will be tearing down Williams pseudoscinetific gibberish in a day or two."
"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."
I think it seems fairly obvious that you have been the creator of some mud-slinging and mean-spirited comments. Percy also seems to agree with my assesment here, so maybe you should argue with him instead.
It might seem that way if one were to only read the pertinent threads here on this forum, I agree. Though it is pointless, I could link to dozens of posts by Fred elsewhere demonstrating that I am doing nothing but carrying on a tradition that Fred began long ago.
quote:
"I think my CV speaks for itself. I'm no Nobel Laureate, but then, I don't claim or imply that I am (or should be)... Mean-spirited? How's this:"
I think it is fairly obvious that both you and Fred are guilty of unneccesary slander. However, you WERE the one that brought it up:
"Apparently, you don't see Williams for what he is, nor have you seen him in action on the internet, where he makes the most obnoxious, rude 'evo' look like Mr.Rogers."
What is slanderous about that? I didn't write the above followed or preceeded by "I am the nicest guy on the net, but this Fred guy...".
quote:
If you are going to accuse Williams of rude behavior, I would think that you would make sure your own behavior was in check. As it stands, both of you seem equally guilty and neither should be pointing fingers at the other- rather you should try to make peace as well as you can.
I have tried to do so on a number of occasions. See Fred's 'moron' comments to see what gets returned. Even when he gets conciliatory, he cannot help by make comments such as this, in response to a doctorate-holding geneticist from Stanford, emphasis mine:
******************************************************************
S: That's why he retracted the argument and did not use it again. As for his other arguments against ReMine, you are soundly beaten. For instance, you have yet to answer the question: how many beneficial mutations need to be fixed to account for the divergence of humans and chimps?
Fred:
LOL! I am soundly beaten because I can’t prove that 1667 is not enough to account for human evolution? I will repeat this to you. You have to be a complete fool to believe such a small difference can account for the difference between chimp and man. I’m sorry, but I really do believe this and I’m not goin to mince words. You have to be a complete moron to hold such an indefensible position.
*************************************************
So there you have it - if you do not completely agree with Fred Williams, creationist electrical engineer, then you are obviously a complete fool and/or a complete moron.
But you are right - an 'intellectual' should be able to respond to repeated statements like that without responding in kind.
quote:
"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."
It seems to me that being "intellectual" would mean that you would generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, especially before accusing your opponent of the same.
I do not see where I claimed to be an "intellectual". Please point out some of these 'logical fallacies' that I have employed. Again, I never wrtote explicitly or implicitly anything remotely like "I am a nice guy, but Fred Williams is a rude so-and-so." Had I done so, then your position would be warranted.
quote:
"Is that why you praised Fred's site for being "insulting"?"
You're right- "insulting" was the wrong word. What I meant was "teasing" in a playful sort of way, but that sounds kinda gay, don't you think?

I don't know - what does 'gay' sound like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-13-2002 1:50 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 06-14-2002 5:16 PM derwood has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 23 of 23 (11609)
06-14-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by derwood
06-14-2002 2:23 PM


SLPx quoting Fred Williams:

You have to be a complete fool to believe such a small difference can account for the difference between chimp and man. I’m sorry, but I really do believe this and I’m not goin to mince words. You have to be a complete moron to hold such an indefensible position.
This wouldn't be an acceptable style of debate here.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 06-14-2002 2:23 PM derwood 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