Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 191 (21444)
11-02-2002 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Budikka
10-31-2002 5:53 PM


"You requoted quote:
"Of course this was quite some time ago and my thoughts may have greatly been altered due to further research. [Edit] - As this is the case, I am not looking for, nor do I need a refutation of my refutation."
is irrelevant. The point is that I posted material addressed to Christopher Bohar. Not a single creationist has come into this thread and addressed *that* material. The rules for this board specifically make the point that posters should stay on topic. Neither you nor Borger seems to have any clue as to what that actually means."
--Well then why are you deliberately setting me up by responding to my messages (which according to you are completely off topic) and then claim that I am the one straying the topic! Also, the style you have used when posting your 'challenges' is unreasonable, attacking with quantity. Why not start a topic with a 'single' challenge rather than even attempting to keep up with and chase down 20 completely different topics of study, each of which could go into so much depth it is unbearable to think about following more than 1. By the way, the quote was in complete relevance.
"If you do not want to get involved, then do not come bungling into a thread that you cannot handle. Period."
--It is completely unreasonable!
"If you do not want to get involved, then do not come bungling into a thread that you cannot handle. Period. All you are doing is a Borger - borging into a thread, blabbering off-topic trash, with no support and no references, and effectively dealing with nothing in the original thread."
--The first post was directed at Borger, but if you didn't want me to get involved then you should have told me in your first reply to me.
"You were the one who said you had started refuting the 300 Lies. I looked at one of these so-called refutations and found that it actually refuted nothing. I patiently explained the reason why I posted the response. I am sorry that you were not able to grasp that, but that's your problem, not mine."
--This is why the quote is completely relevant, the article is utterly outdated!
"You invite:
"Take one of your arguments which you assume would be unexplainable given my POV as I have listed a few around the forum and we can delve into it as far as would be relevant (preferably, geoscience)."
First of all, I have no idea what your POV is."
--YEC, now make the thread since you didn't like the first one I made for you specifically and we can tumble.
"Secondly, I have posted all I intend to post in this thread until and unless someone deals with the issues that I have specifically raised here in the early postings."
--Feel free to ignore this post then, well at least no need for response.
"If I recall, I specifically invited you personally to post your ten best arguments, and now here you are, once again, meandering off topic, blathering about vague material you may or may not have posted "somewhere on the Internet"."
--No, see above about the credibility of the 300 lies article rebutal. And no, I'm not going to 'post my ten best arguments' because I am not arguing against the ToE. I simply support my position as a YEC. I also don't play with your silly debate tactic for unreasonable quantity. You evidently have attempted to perfect this tactic, however.
"I will not do your work for you. You need to do the work. "
--If you've done no work, you must not have any questions then.
"I am not in the business of searching the Internet in the hope of finding some vaguery of yours that might be worth refuting."
--I don't have anything else on the internet, I in the most part just carry my discussions and perform my deductions in this forum.
"If you wish to pursue this thread, address the issues I have raised, or post your ten best arguments as I invited you to do long ago. Otherwise, stay out of this thread and quit wasting my time."
--After my next post, you then can consider me as leaving the building.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Budikka, posted 10-31-2002 5:53 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Budikka, posted 11-06-2002 6:09 AM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 191 (21445)
11-02-2002 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Budikka
11-02-2002 9:02 PM


"Do you care to highlight what these supposed inconsistencies are, or is this yet another example of unsupported creationist lies and strawmen? Or are you going to be unique in having the honesty to admit that all you actually have is sour grapes because you could not rise to the challenges any more effectively or competently than Borger?"
--Your 'Inconsistencies' is your problem with carrying on a fluid discussion with anyone, please see Quetzals post for your 'inconsistencies'. As long your posts continue to contain this type of extraneous jargon you will not hold too much productive discussion. You have a bit of good information behind all of that in some of your posts, that covering doesn't make it sound any better so please get rid of it.
Adminnemooseus:
--My post, yes, was not relevant as to addressing the content of Buddikas claims & assertions. I made the same attempt as Quetzal did which can basically be summed up as 'we like the discussions being held here, however please settle down on that extraneous rhetoric'. My posts do not need response here but shouldn't be ignored and considered by Buddika is my request.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Budikka, posted 11-02-2002 9:02 PM Budikka has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 191 (21448)
11-03-2002 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Adminnemooseus
11-02-2002 10:09 PM


Adminemooseus: Very well. I stand corrected. Obviously I’m unable to understand the subtleties of board policy concerning the level of permitted vitriol — which is of course why I’m not a moderator. Feel free to moderate the farging board any way you wish.
Budikka: I apologize for my comment. Since the board administrators apparently feel your responses thus far are acceptable, I publicly retract my statements and implied criticism. However, I would like to address two of the questions you posed to me in your response before leaving you to your exchange with PB.
1. No, I’m not a moderator — obviously. My interest is that one of the things that has (or perhaps had) consistently attracted me to this board was the relatively high level of the average discussion and the relatively low level of flames. Evidently, I misunderstood the policies on this.
2. A subtle insult is of course still an insult. However, and this is merely personal preference, I find that a subtle insult is significantly more creative than calling someone an incompetent boob (or words to that effect). It makes the insulter look clever, and leaves the insultee with nothing to chew on — and yet everyone knows that an insult has been levied.
Again, please accept my apologies for the unsolicited comment.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-02-2002 10:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 11-03-2002 9:38 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 51 by Budikka, posted 11-03-2002 6:05 PM Quetzal has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 191 (21453)
11-03-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
11-03-2002 4:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Adminemooseus: Very well. I stand corrected. Obviously I’m unable to understand the subtleties of board policy concerning the level of permitted vitriol — which is of course why I’m not a moderator. Feel free to moderate the farging board any way you wish.

Respectfully admins, I am completely with Quetzal on this one.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 11-03-2002 4:03 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-03-2002 10:14 AM John has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 50 of 191 (21454)
11-03-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by John
11-03-2002 9:38 AM


I request that all take the off-topic discussion (concerning moderating procedures) to the "Nos and Nos-like behavior" topic at http://EvC Forum: Nos and Nos-like behavior -->EvC Forum: Nos and Nos-like behavior
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John, posted 11-03-2002 9:38 AM John has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 191 (21462)
11-03-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
11-03-2002 4:03 AM


Quetzal, please do not worry about this. It is not my "plan" to ignore or break rules or to offend the average user of these boards, and I will accept constructive criticism.
I admit to being blunt in this thread, but this is a result of my frustration with the creationists (specifically Christopher Bohar, Peter Borger and "Truecreation"). Bohar emailed me directly with an arrogant and insulting challenge to debate, but when I emailed a response to him, it could not find him! I posted a response in Fred Williams' guest book on his web site at http://www.evolutionfairtytale.com, since Bohar repeatedly referred to that site as though he and Williams were bosom buddies.
Fred Williams' response to that was to "ban" me (big punishment!) from even *reading* his guest book, let alone posting anything in it (he even banned me from reading his "response to Budikka" on that same site!).
We can clearly see what kind of site Williams is running. However, since Williams has on a couple of occasions referred me to the present boards for debates, I posted the Bohar challenge here as one last attempt to try and reach the guy. As you can see, he has never showed. Frankly, I am actually beginning to wonder if Fred Williams hasn't had some sort of hand in this whole affair! I certainly wouldn't put it past him.
The latter two of the creationists listed above were the ones who did show up in this thread, and neither of them have effectively addressed the material I posted addressed to Bohar. Borger in particular came in here like a bull at a red rag, posting a mass of irrelevant material drafted in from some other thread he is running. I have since taken him up on these topics in that thread.
What I have consistently (and unsuccessfully!) tried to do in this thread is focus Borger in particular on the material being addressed here. Since neither Borger nor Truecreation are evidentially able to respond to the material, I am about ready to request that this thread be archived, since it is going nowhere. I will leave it open a little longer just in case Borger actually does have anything to say on topic, but my patience with him here has worn very thin, and I do not expect him to live up to his claims. I am trying a different approach in his own thread.
If it makes you feel better, I accept your apology, but it really isn't necessary.
I share your attraction to what you describe as "the relatively high level of the average discussion and the relatively low level of flames.", but it is difficult to maintain that level when arrogant creationists talk down to evolutionists as though they are agents of Satan or congenitally stupid, and when creationists persistently duck challenges as Borger is doing here. And it is especially frustrating when they resurrect already refuted material or repeatedly try to get away with argument which is ill-formed or ill-informed.
My question to you regarding whether you were a moderator was not intended to be accusatory, merely interogatory, because I got a nasty feeling creep over me when I thought you might be, a feeling related to creationist bias. Let me explain.
I have been dealing with creationists for a long time, and a distinct MO of theirs is the "dumb insolence method". They love to employ this in live debate and I think it accounts for the relatively high level of misperception that they are successful in these debates.
The dumb insolence method requires that they simultaneously throw out a plethora of misinformation while ignoring evolutionist challenges, or at best, only tangentially addressing these challenges. Fred Williams in particular is very skilled at the tangential response strategy, but I have addressed his problems in a separate thread.
It is easy for creationists to ply their trade in live debate, but harder in "written" debate such as this. Unfortunately I let Fred Williams indulge himself too much in this approach in the debate I had with him on his web site.
I do not intend to let any other creationist get away with this, which is why I keep slamming Borger back to the topic. Perhaps I am running near the limits on this, but all Borger has to do to return me to my aimiable self is deal with the issues. He has only himself to blame for my attitude towards him.
What I was afraid of, if you were indeed a moderator censoring me, is that you were passively supporting the creationist hit-and-run strategy by censoring me for my frustrated rhetoric, whilst failing to address their (in my opinion) greater sin of continuously straying off topic (or in Borger's case, never actually being on topic to begin with!). I am relieved to know this is not the case!
I take your point about insults, but I have to disagree. An insult is an insult, and it would be better to avoid them altogether, but after three or four years of creationist insults, passive, subtle, and flaming, not just at me, but at hard-working scientists in general my patience with them tends to be short, whether they are subtle or not, especially when they continue to seek to trash evolution, yet can never get their own house in order.
Unlike the creationists, I never pretend to be perfect (or to have perfect knowledge)! I am a work in progress and the only way to improve is with practice. I hope this explains my position with somewhat more clarity and less rhetoric.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 11-03-2002 4:03 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 7:04 PM Budikka has replied

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


Message 52 of 191 (21615)
11-05-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Budikka
11-03-2002 6:05 PM


quote:
Bohar emailed me directly with an arrogant and insulting challenge to debate, but when I emailed a response to him, it could not find him! I posted a response in Fred Williams' guest book on his web site at http://www.evolutionfairtytale.com, since Bohar repeatedly referred to that site as though he and Williams were bosom buddies. Fred Williams' response to that was to "ban" me (big punishment!) from even *reading* his guest book, let alone posting anything in it (he even banned me from reading his "response to Budikka" on that same site!).
Ian, I see you are still fond of telling stories. First, you are only the second person in the 5 year history of my website that was banned from my guestbook. Why? You were warned not to post other’s personal email correspondence to my book without their permission, and since you again failed to respect this simple rule you were banned. Second, your last sentence is also misleading since I emailed you my response, knowing you were no longer going to be able to access it in the protected guestbook area.
If you promise you will be good and never again post personal email without the author’s permission, I will remove the lock of your IP. I know you are just itching to get back on your favorite site on the web!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Budikka, posted 11-03-2002 6:05 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Budikka, posted 11-06-2002 5:34 AM Fred Williams has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 53 of 191 (21660)
11-06-2002 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
10-19-2002 9:31 PM


Dear Buddika,
I will solve your 22 failures. This week I will solve # 1. Every week I will solve at least one.
Buddika's failure #1:
1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".
My solution:
Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 10-19-2002 9:31 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Mammuthus, posted 11-06-2002 5:18 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 56 by Budikka, posted 11-06-2002 5:44 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 58 by derwood, posted 11-06-2002 9:50 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 61 by Chavalon, posted 11-07-2002 6:52 PM peter borger has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 54 of 191 (21663)
11-06-2002 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by peter borger
11-06-2002 4:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,
I will solve your 22 failures. This week I will solve # 1. Every week I will solve at least one.
Buddika's failure #1:
1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".
My solution:
Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.
Best wishes,
Peter

***************************+
So what "kind" are the sterile hybrids that cannot reproduce beyond the F1? Define, compatible DNA. If this definition is true why can hybrid zones only be maintained when the parent species are in proximity if they are a real self perpetuating "kind"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:54 AM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 191 (21667)
11-06-2002 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fred Williams
11-05-2002 7:04 PM


Williams: "Ian, I see you are still fond of telling stories."
No one tells more stories than you do as is evidence from countless postings to these boards. Obviously you have not read this thread, otherwise you would understand that the topic is not you, much as you would love it to be, but Bohar's material. Your web site was mentioned only because it was relevant to my explantion to Quetzal as to how this thread began.
If you cannot address the material relevant to this thread (and I know you cannot) then please do not post you self-serving propaganda here.
Williams: "First, you are only the second person in the 5 year history of my website that was banned from my guestbook. Why? You were warned not to post other’s personal email correspondence to my book without their permission, and since you again failed to respect this simple rule you were banned."
And again, if you had read the material in this thread, you would know why I did what I did. Your take on email posting is wrong. As I have already explained to you, email material is the same as snail-mail material. Once it is emailed to someone, especially if it is unbidden, and especially if there are no caveats pertaining to it, it becomes the property of the recipient to do with as they wish. Your view on this (as on many other things) is quite plain and simply wrong once again, and serves nothing but your own self-interests.
As I made perfectly plain, and as you would have known if you had actually read the relevant material, even if I had deemed that I needed permission, such permission in this case was unobtainiable, since Christopher Bohar has apparently disappeared from the planet without trace. Once again, for the learning-impaired, this was why I posted to your board in an attempt to reach Bohar. Once again, this was why I opened this thread.
Williams: "Second, your last sentence is also misleading since I emailed you my response, knowing you were no longer going to be able to access it in the protected guestbook area."
Another Williams self-serving lie. The material you emailed to me is not the same material that is in the specific "Response to Budikka" section of your web site and you know it, unless you have recently changed it. At best it could be called a subset of that material, and your so-called "refutation" of the wasp-ant evidence is yet another Williams Lie (TM), since your "refutation" is nothing but self-serving blather from a creationist lie mill, as I have dealt with elsewhere on these boards.
Williams: "If you promise you will be good and never again post personal email without the author’s permission, I will remove the lock of your IP. I know you are just itching to get back on your favorite site on the web!"
I have not the slightest interest whatsoever in involving myself in your sychophantic blather board ever again, so your farcical and self-serving "ban" is entirely irrelevant to me. Please do leave it in place, because it serves me far better than it will ever serve you.
I have dealt with your numerous web site lies in a separate thread on these boards. Since I have more than once made it plain that I will do what I wish with emails that are sent to me, creationists who email me have no excuse when I make use of their emails for my own purposes.
Now please, if you cannot address the material posted in the opener to this thread, please do not waste any more space here with your fairytales.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fred Williams, posted 11-05-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 7:34 PM Budikka has replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 191 (21668)
11-06-2002 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by peter borger
11-06-2002 4:54 AM


Finally, someone gets down to business!
Borger: "Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA."
So you are saying that "all" organisms are the same kind, since they all have the same DNA building blocks and through artifically adjusting this DNA, we can produce mixtures of any two organisms?
In short, your definition defines nothing. You are saying a "kind" is a "kind"!
What do you mean by "compatible DNA"? All DNA is compatible since it is composed of precisely the same base pairs and amino acids in different mixtures.
Define "compatible DNA". Give some examples of organisms that, in your view, constitute the same "kind" and contrast them with other organisms that, while seemingly alike, do not constitute the same "kind", otherwise your "definition" is worthless.
Since evolution between "kinds" is also relevant here, you need to address the next issue along with this issue. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind" and what is the scientific proof that there exists such a mechanism? You cannot sepearate the one from the the other. If you cannot define such a mechanism, then how can you even define "kind"?
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:54 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 11-07-2002 11:47 PM Budikka has replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 191 (21669)
11-06-2002 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by TrueCreation
11-02-2002 11:32 PM


Since Truecreation has announced that he has left the building, this response will be short, but his material does need to be addressed.
Truecreation: "Well then why are you deliberately setting me up by responding to my messages (which according to you are completely off topic) and then claim that I am the one straying the topic!"
Truecreation appears to be claiming a right here, to be allowed to stray off topic, but that in every message where this happens, I have no right to respond! Clearly this is nonsense.
Truecreation did address one issue (the 300 lies) that was on topic. As I made clear in my response to that, I addressed only one of these examples in order to demonstrate that it was not the refutation that Truecreation claimed it was. I do not insist that Truecreation answer my every charge, only that the initial material posted in this thread be addressed. Postings that do not address this material are off topic. It's really quite simple.
Nor have I insisted that every single thing be addressed. Quite the contrary. In my initial response to Truecreation I offered several options for a response, all of which were ignored.
Truecreation: "Also, the style you have used when posting your 'challenges' is unreasonable, attacking with quantity."
Quantity is what the evolutionists have. It is the creationists who evidently lack this. Once again, I opened several options to Truecreation, all of which were ignored. If he wanted to address one single topic, why did he not post his ten best arguments and insist that I deal with them one at a time?
Me: "If you do not want to get involved, then do not come bungling into a thread that you cannot handle. Period."
Truecreation: "It is completely unreasonable!"
Oh really?!! If Truecreation had handled even *one* item as he claims he can do, then I would never have had cause to respond with such a remark.
Truecreation: "The first post was directed at Borger, but if you didn't want me to get involved then you should have told me in your first reply to me."
No! The very first post was addressed to Christopher Bohar! Please note the topic of this thread "Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge."
I cannot make it any simpler than that. Nor can I make it simpler than to keep repeating that the material in the first post to this thread is what this thread is about and what needs to be addressed by any challengers.
Truecreation: "This is why the quote is completely relevant, the article is utterly outdated!"
Truecreation's article may have been (although this begs the question as to how a solid rebuttal to evolutionist material can become "outdated"!), but this also begs the question as to why the material was even mentioned as opposed to Truecreation creating a new rebuttal to the present material.
Truecreation: "YEC, now make the thread since you didn't like the first one I made for you specifically and we can tumble."
This *is* the thread! If Truecreation had wanted to pick one topic from the very first post in this thread and go after that, then that would have been fine, but he apparently cannot do this, which suggests that opening yet another thread to keep him happy would be just as much a waste of time as going after one topic in this thread. Why should I go to that trouble? If he wants to debate *one* topic, let him open his own thread.
Truecreation: "And no, I'm not going to 'post my ten best arguments' because I am not arguing against the ToE."
This begs the question as to why Truecreation posted any material at all in this thread and why he keeps insisting I open a new single-topic thread. If he is not arguing against ToE, then why hang out on these boards?!
Truecreation: "If you've done no work, you must not have any questions then."
The 300 lies are not considered work? The quantity of material (that Truecreation complains about) posted here is not work? Truecreation's approach is inexplicable.
Truecreation: "I don't have anything else on the internet, I in the most part just carry my discussions and perform my deductions in this forum."
If you have posted other material in this forum, you have something else on the Internet. Do not refer me, or write as though you are referring me, to your other material if there is none.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 11-02-2002 11:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 58 of 191 (21696)
11-06-2002 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by peter borger
11-06-2002 4:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".
My solution:
Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.
Best wishes,
Peter
Please define "compatible".
What about 'obviously' related creatures that do not hybribize? Do the offspring have to be fertile?
You mention that if they can produce offsprinmg via 'artificial' means - what does this mean? Would genetic engineering count?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by peter borger, posted 11-06-2002 4:54 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 59 of 191 (21738)
11-06-2002 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Budikka
11-06-2002 5:34 AM


quote:
Once it is emailed to someone, especially if it is unbidden, and especially if there are no caveats pertaining to it, it becomes the property of the recipient to do with as they wish. Your view on this (as on many other things) is quite plain and simply wrong once again, and serves nothing but your own self-interests.
No, it served the self-interests of other guestbook visitors who were not happy with being inundated with your email, then unbeknownst to them posting their comments to my guestbook. I don’t care about the legalities of whether or not email sent to you is your property. I made the rule because of your abuses (perhaps I should call it the Budikka rule on your behalf), you then chose to continue to violate it as well as my other posted guestbook etiquette, and thus you were booted off. Anyone can visit my site and see I censor nobody, provided they abide by the simple rules. I actually preferred your entries because they were great at exposing the speciousness of the arguments for evolution.
quote:
Williams: "Second, your last sentence is also misleading since I emailed you my response, knowing you were no longer going to be able to access it in the protected guestbook area."
Another Williams self-serving lie. The material you emailed to me is not the same material that is in the specific "Response to Budikka" section of your web site and you know it, unless you have recently changed it.
It is EXACTLY the same as was sent to you. I made NO changes.
Ian, you are one bitter individual. Perhaps you should take up badminton or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Budikka, posted 11-06-2002 5:34 AM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 11-07-2002 9:10 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 69 by Budikka, posted 11-09-2002 4:02 AM Fred Williams has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 191 (21776)
11-07-2002 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Fred Williams
11-06-2002 7:34 PM


Fred, might I suggest that, independent of who is at fault in the exchange between you and Budikka at your site, that issues of fairness and objectivity can't help but be called into question when the same individual is both debater and moderator. Whether or not Budikka is bitter, his frustration is certainly understandable, and though I can't condone his overly adversarial approach I believe that exchanges conducted in more neutral territory might bear less bitter and more nourishing fruit.
--Ted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Fred Williams, posted 11-06-2002 7:34 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Fred Williams, posted 11-08-2002 5:30 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024