Terry at the Talk Origins board

Debate with Terry is an investigation into abnormal psychology, not a discussion. The last post of the exchange leading to my banning back in November of 2000 is message 75 of the Is light speed REALLY a constant? thread.--Percy

Messages about the banning were there for a while, then Terry deleted them.Terry is interested not in debate but in maintaining the appearance at his site that Creationists have the upper hand. And he's successful in that. Evolutionist members who are persistent in presenting their views will eventually be banned on one pretext or another. He's entertaining to watch, but that's about it. He occasionally ventures out to sites like usenet's Talk.Origins where he takes a beating then disappears for long periods.I wonder if he'd show if someone invited him here.--Percy

My experience was very similar in the Is light speed REALLY a constant? thread. Once he latched onto an interpretation he liked he would not let go of it. Pointing out that his interpretation of a passage rendered it contradictory to the rest of the article or introducing other articles making the point in a different way does not budge him. In my case he stopped discussing the actual issue and just posted messages declaring I was wrong and just wouldn't admit it. I assume he still believes there are scientists out there working on faster-than-light computers, just as he apparently believes stellar evolution is rapid.With Terry it's, "Don't confuse me with the facts, because I get confused really easily. I know what I believe and you're wrong, and if you persist you're also banned!"--Percy

I appear to be unbanned: Email from MSN Talk OriginsI was still banned, so I reapplied, identified myself in case he'd forgotten, and apparently Terry let me in. Go figure.Added by edit: Whoops! Spoke too soon. I'm still banned. I guess readmission doesn't affect the ban list. Stay tuned...--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 09-27-2002]

Hi, Terry! Welcome aboard!You say you won't be coming back, so I'll keep this short since it's not likely you'll see it.At your board it isn't possible to argue knowledgably for evolution without being banned. People are complaining about you because after investing considerable energy in discussion at your site you banned them. In many cases you also edited the post history.My hope is that you'll join the EvC Forum so that we can complete the discussions that were left incomplete. There is a set of Forum Guidelines that are closely and fairly followed here. Discussion is usually civil and enforcement has never gone beyond a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges, something both evolutionists and Creationists have experienced.--Percy

I probably should have commented on this in my previous post:

Terry writes:

---

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 is the Free For All forum, where anything goes. It is the only unmoderated forum at this site. It is also one of only two forums where registration is not required. As I mentioned earlier, there is a set of Forum Guidelines that are enforced in the other forums. I suggest you give those a read some time. And if you can learn the meaning of the word debunk I might even let you try your hand as moderator.The only reason people are posting criticisms of you here is because you took away their voice there. From reading the posts at your site I can see that considerable time and effort has been invested by evolutionists in discussion with you, and that persisting in disagreeing with you results in banning for behavior that would be appropriate even in the Queen's presence, often followed by your creation of a revisionist history through the editing and deleting of various posts.--Percy

Sounds like we view this forum the same way. As the description of Free For All says, "No registration required, anything goes, no holds barred, flame-on."--Percy

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

Isn't Salty's comment about you becoming tiresome a violation of Terry's civility standards? Terry wouldn't unequally enforce his standards, would he? --Percy

--Percy

Terry's the windmill.--Percy

Doesn't Terry have a good point about Havasu Canyon? Not in the final tally, of course, but at this middle stage of the discussion where you've been arguing that a younger age for part of the Marble Canyon has no implications for the age of the rest of the canyon, Havasu Canyon is almost at the other end of the canyon. Terry is pointing out that younger dates aren't just at the top end of the canyon, but also at the bottom end, and by implication probably lots of other places too.This is easily rebutted, but it seemed his strongest point, and you didn't seem to address it.--Percy

Terry's reply will be that his point all along has been that science is coming closer and closer to the Creationist point of view, and the fact that science isn't yet all the way there isn't significant at this stage of the process.--Percy

You might also mention that dates are revised all the time, both upward and downward. Geologists are simply responding to new data or improved interpretations or analyses of existing data, and it has nothing to do with the YEC perspective. They're not disagreeing with YEC when they revise upward, and they're not moving toward the YEC point of view when they revise downward. Their perspective has been and remains one of geologic time, something which the YEC maximum of 10,000 years doesn't allow.--Percy

Looks like I was wrong. In message 83 Terry has taken the tack that researchers are finding conflicting ages, but turning a blind eye to the contradictions. Here's the link to the thread again.Incredible that he actually states he prefers the University of Arizona's summary of the paper rather than the paper itself, or even the author himself. Terry is a blast to debate with because you never know what wonderful entertainment he's going to provide as he figures out how to once again pull the wool over his own eyes.--Percy