Terry at the Talk Origins board

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I've gotten into a bit of a tangle with Terry, over his starting of topics that I view as trite nitpickings, in some sort of effort to discredit scientific methodology.

​

The current particular topic, is here.

​

So, I figure I'd start a topic here, to flame on Terry's thought process in the ever popular evolution/creation debate.

​

Moose

​

---

I have a feeling that he isn't really interested in what you can prove to him. Just by his "borrowing" of the name from a pro-science and evolution site to confuse the issue should tell you this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Thanks Moose. Here goes.

​

This is an amusing discussion thread from the Terry's board.

​

Stellar Evolution

​

Terry 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.

---

What does stellar evolution have to do with biological evolution? They are two completely unrelated subjects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
For what it's worth to anybody - I skimmed the remainder of the topic thread without noticing any banning commentary. Apparently Percy's was a stealth banning.

​

Moose

---

Or actually showing him to be wrong is a banning offence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:
Unbelievable. You guys are still sitting over here plotting? You were thrown out of my community - what? Eight months ago? Until Percy applied for membership the other day, I had completely forgotten about you. I followed his link here, and was once again reminded of the length you will go to to disrupt legitimate discussion.

​

You guys seriously need to get a life.

​

If there is some civility rule here, I did not see it; in that case, I apologize in advance for this post.

​

Terry

---

You're banned. "legitimate discussion" also incluse opposing views. If anyone disagrees with you or proves you wrong you will ban them instantly without warning or giving them a chance to defend themselves. You don't know the meaning of the term. Your board is set up just like all creationist boards, to preach to the choir and to masturbate each others egoes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:
Deleting opposing viewpoints? Never.
Banning people because of topic? - well, let's see. If you call me a bastard, and I ban you for it, I suppose you could claim you were banned for discussing the topic of my parents marital status, but that would be just a bit of a stretch. In actuality, I have never deleted a post for other than obscene or uncivil content, nor banned a poster for other than such material. You may claim that calling your opponents points "pseudoscience" and "bunk" is not uncivil, but we all know better than that.

​

The claim that it is a 'stacked' board is as truthful as your other accusations. TGS is absolutely an OAE, and he has been in management from the beginning of that group. Salty is absolutely an OAE, and he shares management as well.

​

There are several links over there now to this group; if anyone chooses to come over here and join in the schoolyard 'debate' which takes place here, they are certainly free to do so. For my part, I will relegate this group to the same status as the usenet talk.origins, and bid it, and you -

​

Yom Tov -
and good riddance!

​

Terry

​

ps - if anyone is interested in ACTUAL debate, without the name calling and denigration so prevalent here, you are free to come and join us. If you cannot debate without these tactics, save yourself time and embarrassment, and just stay here.

​

This will be my last visit to your group - so go ahead and tell each other more lies concerning how you were treated unfairly by the nasty creationists, unfettered by any reminder of the reality of the situation which happened - EIGHT MONTHS AGO!

---

I see that you are like all of your kind, you're nothing but a coward and a liar.Note from Adminnemooseus - I was going to truncate the quote, as I had in the previous message. I decided to preserve it, in case Terry deletes the original. Anyhow, people in general - You know, the cyberworld has a limited supply of letters. Where are we going to be if we keep squandering the supply on uneeded quotations.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

​

Much uproar over much ignorance.

---

So, what else is new? BTW, you want some toast?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Isn't Terry violating his own rules when he says in Message 46 of the More Rapid Canyon Carving thread:

​

At this point, moose, it is obvious that you will accept no evidence, no reference, other than what you already choose to believe.

​

He is, as he says in Message 10 of the Morton's Demon thread, offering only his opinion of your thought processes, making it, in Terry's own words, "uncivil and not the kind of post we want here."

​

A good rule of thumb for a moderator to follow is to never moderate discussions in which one is taking part. The temptation to use your moderator powers to your own advantage is too great. You might mention this to Terry.

​

Keep hanging in there, DQ!

​

--Percy

---

Yeah, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
As of this post, 501.

---

How many of them are lurkers?