Terry at the Talk Origins board

Moose, I noticed your post when cruising through that board. That is the only boaard that I have been banned from. I also resigned in disgust from the board when Joe Meert was banned for daring to discuss the failure of the science community to confront creationism in the general community.Maybe I would be offering a biased view?

Moose, if you can tell me how to shorten url's as you did for the thread linked to "here's" I should be able to provide examples of Terry's (and EdenNod's) behaviour with suitable links without stuffing up the format of this thread.

Our friend Terry has an idiosyncratic view of "civil" behaviour and speech.In my first (short) stay on his board I was responding to a posting by one of the creationists' post which had used the word "evilution" by using the word "cretinism". Tit for tat, I thought. I subsequently discovered, after having difficulty getting into the board, that I had been summarily banned for using "uncivil" language and my offending post deleted. No warning, no notice, no consultation with other managers on the board - banned forthwith. Interestingly the original "evilutionist" post remained untouched.I decided to point out this inconsistent and unreasonable approach to Terry. He said that he had not noticed the "evilutionist" post and thought it was a typo. He deemed to let me back on the board if I was a good boy.I was subsequently admonished for uncivil language for using the word "debunk" with respect to creation science. I thought this might be a cultural thing but all of the other non-creationist posters said that the word was not considered uncivil in US society.Joe Meert was admonished (and threatened with banning) for referring to creation science as pseudoscience.Such sensitivity is in stark contrast to the insulting and derogatory remarks which Terry's sidekick EdenNod fires at evolutionists on the board without comment from Terry.Very idiosyncratic.

Thanks Moose. Here goes.This is an amusing discussion thread from the Terry's board.Stellar EvolutionTerry started with a link to a webarticle on the Sakurai Object which talks about advanced stellar evolution and the place of the Sakurai Object. Terry interprets this to mean that the complete lifecycle of a stellar object, from pre-white dwarf to red supergiant to hot central star, has been observed over 70 years. Therefore the "evolutionists" stories of stellar evolution taking million or billions of years is disproved by this single example.One of my first comments was that this did not appear to be the conclusion of the authors but this was dismissed as evolutionist conspiracy or brainwashing. Nevertheless he held this single case to be indicative that stellar evolution occured much faster than evolutionist previously thought. After I gave him links to further articles on the Sakurai Object and the class of dying star which it represented (rather than a new star being created), he withdrew and held the line at "the evolution was extraordinarily rapid" and therefore conventional cosmology is orders of magnitude wrong in its times for stellar evolution. I'm not sure if he ever understood that the Sakurai Object is a short-lived burst of a dying star rather than a new star being formed, evolving and dying.It seems that Terry will selectively believe any anomoly if it is not fully explained by conventional science but studiously avoid actually understanding the issue. Common creationist attitude. At least I got a bit of an education in cosmology through the thread.

Moose, that's probably the way to go. Keep to philosophical, sociological or political issues in discussions with Terry. They are generally expressions of personal opinion with little scientific support. Trying to discuss a science related topic and arguing over the evidence with Terry (or the dealy departed EdenNod)is an exercise in bashing your head against a brick wall - painful and with no tangible benefit.But be warned, don't disparage creationist, even in the most polite terms, or you'll get the Joe Meert treatment.

Ah, another debater with a skeleton in the closet. Should there be a "banned by Terry" support group?

Yes Percy, it is very worrying behaviour from an engineer.I'm sure it would be amusing to see Terry in an open forum where he couldn't exercise control. Maybe an invitation and a promise of us all being civil and treating the most absurd creatioist assertions with due respect will entice him to appear. Any suggestions on which board he might pop up in and what pseudonym he has used?

Actually Moose I recall Terry saying at one point that he had corresponded with Glenn Morton at some earlier time on flood geology or some such matter and was of the opinion that Morton was incompetent or dishonest (I forget which).Perhaps Morton's observations, Morton's Deamon included, were too close to the bone for Terry's comfort.

It would appear that the evidence of Percy's ban at MSN talk.origins has been removed but I can give you the banning of Joe Meert at the same site.The Ocean Depth Pangea Problem threadAt message #18 is Joe's offending message. Terry's version of reality is detailed at message #22. I take no small kudos for having Terry leave the incriminating evidence on the board. And Terry has been oblivious to how damaging the evidence is to his own credibility.Interestingly this was one topic where the creationists completely failed to address the initial topic. Terry had by then decided not to tackle Joe Meert in an area of Joe's expertise.

Oops, sorry for the repetition.As I don't know HTML or UBB code I'll stick to the one I am less ignorant of.Yes, Terry likes to take homely anecdote and extrapolate it to absurd limits. I suspect it might be from his part time church preaching activities. It might even be an effective tool in getting some information into Terry's head. God knows verifiable data and logical argument don't make it past his religious worldview filters.

Here's another banning for your continued enjoyment.Well...Discussion was rolling along nicely (I had only recently joined Terry's board) when message #8 appeared. I decided to respond in kind by making some reference to cretinism. Bang. Terry steps in, deletes and bans without warning or even notice. It took me some weeks to realise I had been banned. I just thought that I couldn't get into the site because of some bug.I wrote to Terry pointing out his inconsistency, to the point of leaving the provocative messge #8 up whilst deleting my response. Terry tried to justify his actions at WJA- thread and at Welcomeback WJA (sic) thread. However, as can be plainly seen, Terry never deleted the post which started the problem.I also ran into problems with him for using the word "debunk" in respect of some creationist argument. I was warned that it was uncivil. Strangely, a range of other contributors from various parts of the US didn't think so but Terry rules OK.

Moose, I see that you are trying to get some more interaction from other posters in the thread on catastrophic gully formation at Terry's board. Unfortunately the intellectual firepower on the creationist side at that board is very limited. Salty will pipe up if the discussion is on Darwinian evolution and decry its fallacy. EdenNod could be relied upon to throw in some irrelevent comment about creationist personalities or theological interpretation, but has apparently departed. And the rest of the creationists at the moment (a few old hands) appear to be mad as hatters and know nothing except their own interpretation of theology. You might be able to rely on TGS to throw in some tangential post which could enliven the thread but he's probably been involved in numerous similar threads with Terry on the grand canyon before.If there is a god, pray that Lighthouse doesn't start cutting n pasting from the aig site. He doesn't understand the scientific issues involved but this does not deter him from sharing it with those who aren't interested.

Ah, the courage of convictions of the lurker.Hang around if you want any of your creationist pseudoscience delusions debunked, Terry. Your perception that people are plotting is indicative of your inability to cope with reality. Read carefully through the thread and you might realise that we are having a good laugh.Why don't you compare the level of "legitimate discussion" going on at this and other sites compared with the level in your intellectually incestuous group.

Terry, obviously you still lack the courage of your convictions. I'm sure you would be most welcome when and if you ever venture out of the protective coccoon of your own world. But be prepared to offer something more substantive than apparent anomolies.And be prepared to be conrfonted by such incivility as dubunking the pseudoscience of creationism. (Observe, I will not be banned for making such a statement on this board.)ta ta.[This message has been edited by wj, 10-06-2002]

Be careful my big furry friend, you seem to have been infected with a Terry-like virus. I suggest a good lie down with a few scientific journals. You should be cured in no time.