John was deeply offended and outraged that false statements had been made about him by the lead moderator. Believing there was no possibility of fair treatment, he left. That's what he said.
He's wrong, of course, and he must know it. I don't know what he hoped to accomplish by such obvious posturing. He sure did place a lot of stock in his irrelevant credentials, both real and imagined. He'll interpret this as a dismissal of the products of study and research, but he'd be wrong again. What I of course mean is that if your evidence and arguments are insufficient, adding your credentials to the mix is irrelevant and isn't going to help your cause. "Because I say so" has never been an effective argument, even for parents.
This thread didn't really get far enough to summarize. John should just drop his faux excuse for leaving and return with a sincere resolve to actually explore his ideas in the arena of critical thought.
Concern Troll: A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could "improve" things, either in their tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency. A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective.". Surprisingly, there are people who spend so much time on the Internet that this is actually a thing they worry about.... One common tactic of concern trolls is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are just as bad as each other, and so no one can think themselves "correct" but must engage in endless hedging and caveats. This preys on a willingness to debate critics and allow dissent; everyone wastes time discussing the matter and bending over backwards, so as not to appear intolerant of disagreement, all to the great amusement of the troll. From Rational wiki
Tone Troll: A tone troll is a serious-minded person who wants only to raise the level of discussion in the dire cesspits of the New Atheist web. Or, possibly, they're a pompous blowhard who, lacking such frivolous accoutrements as an actual argument, attempts to distract attention from said deficit by complaining that their opposition uses dirty words and ought, really, to have some strict nanny figure—possibly Mary Poppins—to wash out their mouths with soap. From Pharyngula
JC told us that some people in the debate can be a bit nasty, unpleasant or disrespectful. He tried to start a meta-debate on the issue. I was never completely persuaded he was a likely candidate to actually debate ID.
We are rightfully pissed off at the ID movement, a specific theistic movement that has co-opted teleology and asserts there is sufficient evidence (often at the microbiological level) that demonstrates the truth of the designer.. A specific movement that sows seeds of doubt into the minds of the lay public as a means to gain finances to continuing sowing seeds of doubt.
There are many legitimate reasons for scientist's enmity of ID, from accusations of scientist's conspiracies, fraud, lies, dirty tricks....ID often slanders or libels the reputation of science, while being a dirty organisation themselves.
Illumination is not the goal of ID, but confusion and the undermining of evolution (and if possible, any remotely related sciences can be undermined by guilt by association). In this, maybe JC is an ID supporter - but in seriousness I think it is a supporter of the philosophical idea of teleology and knows its limits (and knows that faith is required to jump certain hurdles in reasoning).
Maybe JC will be back one day, and maybe he'll even try and defend an ID perspective. I suspect not. Maybe he'll disown the ID Movement and be content with a philosophical argument about teleology, but I carry little hope that is the case.
The baby ducks lived under the front porch. They were very special baby ducks, not yellow like Easter chicks, or white, or even blue though blue duckies would be purty.
They were invisible. That means that only Daddy and me can see them, nobody else.
Sometimes Daddy would take me for a walk all the way up to the big road and back. He taught me how to call the baby ducks out and that I had to take care of them. I had to hold my arms out and keep them together and be very careful 'cause no one else could see them and they might step on them and then they would pop and sometimes one would run away and Daddy would see it and say "Son, git that one before it gits too far off." and he would point it out and I'd shoo it back with the others.
Herding baby ducks is hard work and Daddy says it is 'portant. That means I gotta work real hard at it and keep my eyes open.
Sometimes Daddy would stop to talk with another Daddy and I'd have to keep the baby ducks quiet so they could talk. And I had to watch real close 'cause the other Daddy couldn't see the baby ducks and might step on one but I always watched real good and if it was gonna happen I'd pull on the Daddy's pants and he'd move his foot and no baby ducks ever got popped.
Then when we got to the big road we would turn back home. The baby ducks would be tired and sometimes stop walking and I'd wait until they weren't tired any more and Daddy would wait with me. We'd sit on the grass in front of a yard while the baby ducks ate grass and Daddy would tell me about the things he had seen, men that rode camels and mountains with snow on the top and houses that were on a hill over the water and all had red roofs and they were almost like stairs going up the hill and when the duckies were ready we would walk some more.
When we got home I would lead the baby ducks back to the hole under the porch and they would go in and go to sleep. Daddy would sit on the steps and I'd sit in his lap and he'd tell me stories about what the clouds were doing. Then I'd wake up and be in my bed and sometimes Mommy would be calling and I would go downstairs and we would all eat lunch.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I don't believe jchardy was ever sincere about his intentions. His initial posting reeked of disdain for science and the scientific method, even while insisting that all opinions ought to be respected. And if that weren't enough, he cited scientific mumbo-jumbo at creationist like rates.
I find it quite laughable that the man would find insult from being called a non-scientist, after the junk he posted here.
I'm glad to see the back of the man. He had absolutely nothing to offer.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
Very rarely have I been glad to see the back of someone on this forum, only two spring to mind. It had nothing to do with their views on the debate at hand, but the manner of their posts.
I can now add this clown to the list. From the very first post which pleaded for understanding and respect for all camps, his language about science belied utter hypocrisy and he oozed arrogance. He had no intention of showing any respect for science or scientists. More than anything he seemed to be trying to goad people into responding in a way he would disaprove of. It didn't really work.
He was left to manufacture a dishonest reason for departure and presumably we'll see this accusation of his spouted elsewhere. I really wonder if his intent all along was to find some way to denigrate this site.