Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 16 of 60 (567393)
06-30-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 11:14 PM


Specfic topic debate does not belong in a Coffee House "Hello" topic
We need to get this going in a better place, as suggested by my non-admin alter-ego, a couple of messages up.
Going to close this one down in about 15 minutes.
Adminnemooseus
ps: You are confusing philosophical naturalism (which is specifically anti-theistic) with methodological naturalism (which is agnostic - pretty much "don't know, don't care). This can be discussed further in a new topic.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak and a ps.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "actively atheistic" with "anti-theistic".

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:14 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:46 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 17 of 60 (567400)
06-30-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Adminnemooseus
06-30-2010 11:20 PM


Re: Specfic topic debate does not belong in a Coffee House "Hello" topic
You can close and move to new thread as you see fit, I respect that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 11:20 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-01-2010 12:09 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied

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


Message 18 of 60 (567404)
07-01-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 11:46 PM


Re: Specfic topic debate does not belong in a Coffee House "Hello" topic
I closed this topic, then saw your final message.
I'm not going to move anything out of this topic or in any other way start a new topic. That's your job.
Pull your basic position out of this topic (copy and paste if you wish) and post that material as a new topic at the Proposed New Topics forum. That will be admin reviewed and if up to standards (we're not that hard) will then be moved to a open debate forum.
Perhaps you would like to start with a topic on the differences between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, since that seems to be a central point in the disagreement between you and the forums evolutionists.
I'll leave this topic open for at least a while, but all further messages should be about starting a new topic.
And let me introduce you to my catch phrase - "Or something like that".
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:46 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 60 (567406)
07-01-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 11:14 PM


Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
Oops, posted before reading AM's message.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:14 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

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


Message 20 of 60 (567408)
07-01-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 11:14 PM


Naturalisms
Looking at your wiki source I see I've blotched the naturalism thing somewhat.
Practical Prodigy quotes and writes:
Naturalism is a religious worldview, theistic evolutionists and accept the supernatural aspect of creation. Fundamental evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and hold a naturalists world view in most instances as does a majority of empirical science. The are based on the human experince and observable processes.

This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Naturalism - Wikipedia(philosophy)
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is.
My color bolding. It specifically states that Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) is independent of religious beliefs. What you seem to have conflict with is next at your wiki cite: Metaphysical naturalism. This is what I was erroneously calling philosophical naturalism.
quote:
(Metaphysical) naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."
Metaphysical naturalism denies God's existence. Methodological naturalism does not - It doesn't care one way or the other - God's existence or lack of existence is irrelevant.
But all this needs to go to a theme specific topic elsewhere. Closing this one down. Please start a new topic with the specific theme of your choice.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:14 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

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


Message 21 of 60 (567513)
07-01-2010 12:43 PM


Thread Copied from Coffee House Forum
Thread copied here from the Hello thread in the Coffee House forum.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 60 (567522)
07-01-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 8:56 PM


Re: About Me
I also like atronomy and cosmology.
We have a theoretical physicist that posts here as cavediver, he's posted some really helpful explanations. Check him out.
I am pretty well versed in the Bible, my history knowledge is fairly vast I have done alot of research on most of the Books. I have also researched Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Sacred Writings such as; Book of Enoch, Book of Adam, etc.
You should come in handy in the Bible debates.
I am a nondenominational Christian. I'd say I'm lacking most in organized religion, I grew up in Roman Catholic schooling but dont hold much stock in the "Hollywood" style religion types. In my opinion it takes you from the personal relationship with God and destroys free-thinking and encourages dogma.
Makes sense. No reason to argue that here, although, how many Catholics do you think hold "much stock"
From Message 11:
My position in theistic evolution, due to the fact that I believe in the process of adaptation, mutation, etc (ie micro-evolution). I do not believe that one species will become another through macro-evolution.
Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology.
There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another.
I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there.
I also believe that Evolutional Theory, which is based on philosophical naturalism,
All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes?
I'm not sure of any threads discussing that one that I can refer you to.
Methodological naturalism is thus going far beyond science's proper boundaries of the observable human experience.
Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't.
Proper science uses inductive reasoning from facts or general principles and causality, without excluding possibilities (supernatural or natural)
Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time.
I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to.
Using undirected nature and unnatural intelligent causes to explain everything in the human experience leaves various phenomena unexplained (a basis for most of the content on this site). If something is not repeatable and leaves little trace or no trace of its occurance, mainstream science has a hard time dealing with it.
To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps.
Evolutional theory does not nearly have all the answers it is limited in its application at best, and misleading at worst.
That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading.
You can always just propose a new topic on any one of these issues and you'll probably have plenty of people chiming in to straighten you out.
Have fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 8:56 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 23 of 60 (567542)
07-01-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2010 12:54 PM


Re: About Me
Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology.
There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another.
I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there.
Actually there is alot of things that can stop a bunch of micro's from resulting in a macro. Here is an interesting excerpt to show what I meant:
quote:
Evolvability is a key characteristic of any evolving system, and the concept of evolvability serves as a unifying theme in a wide range of disciplines related to evolutionary theory. The field of quantitative genetics provides a framework for the exploration of evolvability with the promise to produce insights of global importance. With respect to the quantitative genetics of biological systems, the parameters most relevant to evolvability are the G-matrix, which describes the standing additive genetic variances and covariances for a suite of traits, and the M-matrix, which describes the effects of new mutations on genetic variances and covariances. A population's immediate response to selection is governed by the G-matrix. However, evolvability is also concerned with the ability of mutational processes to produce adaptive variants, and consequently the M-matrix is a crucial quantitative genetic parameter. Here, we explore the evolution of evolvability by using analytical theory and simulation-based models to examine the evolution of the mutational correlation, r(mu), the key parameter determining the nature of genetic constraints imposed by M. The model uses a diploid, sexually reproducing population of finite size experiencing stabilizing selection on a two-trait phenotype. We assume that the mutational correlation is a third quantitative trait determined by multiple additive loci. An individual's value of the mutational correlation trait determines the correlation between pleiotropic effects of new alleles when they arise in that individual. Our results show that the mutational correlation, despite the fact that it is not involved directly in the specification of an individual's fitness, does evolve in response to selection on the bivariate phenotype. The mutational variance exhibits a weak tendency to evolve to produce alignment of the M-matrix with the adaptive landscape, but is prone to erratic fluctuations as a consequence of genetic drift. The interpretation of this result is that the evolvability of the population is capable of a response to selection, and whether this response results in an increase or decrease in evolvability depends on the way in which the bivariate phenotypic optimum is expected to move. Interestingly, both analytical and simulation results show that the mutational correlation experiences disruptive selection, with local fitness maxima at -1 and +1. Genetic drift counteracts the tendency for the mutational correlation to persist at these extreme values, however. Our results also show that an evolving M-matrix tends to increase stability of the G-matrix under most circumstances. Previous studies of G-matrix stability, which assume nonevolving M-matrices, consequently may overestimate the level of instability of G relative to what might be expected in natural systems. Overall, our results indicate that evolvability can evolve in natural systems in a way that tends to result in alignment of the G-matrix, the M-matrix, and the adaptive landscape, and that such evolution tends to stabilize the G-matrix over evolutionary time.
There is limits based on genetic information available in other words. Even mutations and variations have to come from pre-existing genetic information. No new genes can be created only combined in various ways. Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation in arthropods and of vertebrates, the transformation of gill-arches in phylogeny, including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc. Further, teeth, shells of molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of ecinoderm, pedicellara of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin, etc. I could also provide examples with plants but I highly doubt you could even cover these, look forward to the explainations ;P
All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes?
Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur. There is a difference between looking for God behind something you can observe and applying a philosophic belief system of deduction and inductive reasoning to something you cant observe nor prove beyond a hypothetic theory. Take a few Forensics classes and you will see what I mean. Do you know how many times the observed data will be completely wrong? Do you realize how much of a person perspective relates to the observance? I could go on for days...
Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't.
I'm sorry but that is simply false for various reasons. Evolution has certainly gone far beyond it scope and basis as a majority of its "proof" is based on extrapolation and inference not on hard evidence. Even in the genetic arena, which is its strongest evidence initiator, there are usally as many questions that are raised and things unexplainable or unobserved. It uses theory, inferences, and fitting available data to a theory to determine its "facts". Quite a poor way of gathering evidence and making its case, and this is coming from someone who's job it is to gather evidence and cross-reference sources. Most of the genetic data and correlations evolutional biologists provide as "missing-links" would never hold up in a court case, which in my experience is more flexible in its acceptance of scientific evidence than mainstream science is SUPPOSED to be.
Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time.
I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to.
Paranormal and supernatural are synonyms and mean the exact same thing so I'm lost on your point here. As far as naturalism its scope only refers to things thought to duplicate themselves, everything it can study is not by definition natural just repeatable. But then again that depends on your interpretation and use of the word natural.
To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps.
That applies to methodological naturalism as well, one is the basis for the other. They are not exclusive.
That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading.
It has not been answered thats conjecture and personal opinion and there are several instances I could show to dispute that observation. But I'll save that for the topics as they are created or I find them and reply to them on these boards.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 2:42 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2010 2:48 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 3:09 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 60 (567544)
07-01-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Practical Prodigy
07-01-2010 2:31 PM


Re: About Me
Hello again Practical Prodigy,
Practical Prodigy writes:
Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; (Lists a bunch of stuff).
Yeah, that's not how we do things around here. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for the evolution of that stuff, pick one (yes, just one) subject and propose a new thread. Nobody is going to tackle all of that at once.
Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur.
Like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 2:31 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 7:24 PM Huntard has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 60 (567545)
07-01-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Practical Prodigy
07-01-2010 2:31 PM


Where do new species come from ?
Since you reject speciation by evolution, where do all the species come from, especially all the new species that have arisen throughout the history of the Earth ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 2:31 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 6:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 60 (567548)
07-01-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Practical Prodigy
07-01-2010 2:31 PM


Re: About Me
Actually there is alot of things that can stop a bunch of micro's from resulting in a macro.
A lot? Like what, in general in your own words? Just one.
Here is an interesting excerpt to show what I meant:
Its always a good ideo to provide links when you quote outside material. I found the article here:
The mutation matrix and the evolution of evolvability - PubMed
There is limits based on genetic information available in other words.
I didn't quite get that from the article. Can you explain in your own words how the article says that? What is the limit? How is it based on genetic information available?
Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation in arthropods and of vertebrates, the transformation of gill-arches in phylogeny, including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc. Further, teeth, shells of molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of ecinoderm, pedicellara of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin, etc. I could also provide examples with plants but I highly doubt you could even cover these, look forward to the explainations ;P
Well I'm not going to go through all those here. Some of them can be explained, some of them I don't know about.
But a currently unexplained phenomenon doesn't falsify the theory, nor is any of those showing how a bunch of micros are prevented from being a macro.
Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur.
Like what?
There is a difference between looking for God behind something you can observe and applying a philosophic belief system of deduction and inductive reasoning to something you cant observe nor prove beyond a hypothetic theory.
Sure, but even the Theory of Evolution does not say that god has nothing to do with it.
I'm sorry but that is simply false for various reasons. Evolution has certainly gone far beyond it scope and basis as a majority of its "proof" is based on extrapolation and inference not on hard evidence.
How so?
Even in the genetic arena, which is its strongest evidence initiator, there are usally as many questions that are raised and things unexplainable or unobserved. It uses theory, inferences, and fitting available data to a theory to determine its "facts". Quite a poor way of gathering evidence and making its case, and this is coming from someone who's job it is to gather evidence and cross-reference sources. Most of the genetic data and correlations evolutional biologists provide as "missing-links" would never hold up in a court case, which in my experience is more flexible in its acceptance of scientific evidence than mainstream science is SUPPOSED to be.
Well I haven't seen any of it.
Paranormal and supernatural are synonyms and mean the exact same thing so I'm lost on your point here.
Supernatural implies that there can never be a scientific explanation while paranormal allows for one to be discovered in the future.
That applies to methodological naturalism as well, one is the basis for the other. They are not exclusive.
Philisophical Naturalism is an idea. It deals with ontology, what exists and what doesn't. Methodological Naturalism is a process. It deals with epistemology, how can we acquire knowledge about the world. They are not the same thing.
Applying Methodological Naturalism is not assuming Philisophical Naturalism. That's why I can perform chemistry expirements without considering whether god is in the test tube or not all the while taking no position on god's existence. The same goes with the Theory of Evolution... seeking a natural explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is not saying that god had no role whatsoever.
It has not been answered thats conjecture and personal opinion and there are several instances I could show to dispute that observation.
Give me just one example of something that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 2:31 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 8:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 27 of 60 (567556)
07-01-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Practical Prodigy
06-30-2010 11:14 PM


Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
Hi Mr Prodigy!
Practical Prodigy writes:
I also only reject macro-evolution not the consensus on observable micro-evolution.
I believe that biological micro-evolution is merely another process within creation. It is what God employed to develop diversity and adaptation.
Thus you are in truth a creationist.
Rejection of "macro-evolution" is a rejection of a fundamental part of ToE and modern biological science. It's also a standard creationist talking point. You might believe that you simply differ with other evolutionists about where you draw the line regarding god/s's involvement with the evolutionary process, but in my opinion, if you really believe that it takes god/s to change a wolf into a dog, then you're a creationist at heart.
I also personally believe that theistic evolution is ultimately an untenable position, but that's neither here nor there.
Practical Prodigy writes:
Wikipedia writes:
[Methodolgocial Naturalism] is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is.
I was originally going to give my standard reply when someone claims that atheism is a religion, which is simply:
Bald is not a hair color.
However, you're going beyond that if you want to claim that methodological naturalism is the same thing as atheism, which is what you appear to be doing in the end. Your logic seems to go:
1. MN is inherently atheistic, since it not only disregards, but actually denies the supernatural.
2. Atheism is a form of religion, as it takes a position on the existence of a deity, i.e. there ain't one.
3. Thus, MN is a religious worldview.
So I must point out that not only is bald not a hair color, bald is also not a shoe size.
Enjoy your stay here.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Practical Prodigy, posted 06-30-2010 11:14 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 60 (567561)
07-01-2010 3:53 PM


A personal opinion about this thread
Firstly, a welcome to Practical Prodigy.
Secondly, some editorializing.
I do not like what is happening in this thread.
As I see it, Practical Prodigy opened the thread in order to introduce himself. I think he should be allowed a friendly introduction.
Practical Prodigy did not open a debate topic. He opened an introduction topic. He presented his position in response to a poster who asked where he stood. I think it rather unfortunate that we should be demanding that he defend that position in his introduction thread. It is reasonable for people to express disagreement, but not to demand that he defend his position in his introduction. Allow Practical Prodigy some time to become more familiar with evcforum, and then to propose a topic on his own terms if he wants to argue for his position.
For the record, I do not agree with the position that Practical Prodigy expressed in Message 11. But I respect his right to decide for himself where he stands.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 4:19 PM nwr has replied
 Message 35 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-01-2010 9:07 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 60 (567567)
07-01-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
07-01-2010 3:53 PM


Re: A personal opinion about this thread
He's under no obligation to reply. I'm just trying to get a better idea where he stands. Just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 07-01-2010 3:53 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 07-01-2010 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 60 (567568)
07-01-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2010 4:19 PM


Re: A personal opinion about this thread
I probably should have been clearer. My main complaint is about the moving of this topic out of Coffee House.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 5:05 PM nwr has seen this message but 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