I needed to consolidate the posts of various counterparts of the bicycle/motorcycle thread who, get a whif of
blood in the air and get all frenzied up over a debatable issue, implicating gross forum guideline violations to their opponent, so as to
legally make personal attacks on the opponent, rather than sticking to fair and square debate. These impatient members forget that the rule of law here is for each to go at their own pace in these debates. These impatient members also seem to forget their the few ID creo counterparts also may be involved in other threads and that some of us members like myself who has a solely owned and operated business as well as many other activities is limited as to the time for forum debate.
As per usual, with me, Schrafinator sets off the charge:
But it isn't purely random.
You "forgot" to include selection yet again, buz.
Selection, selection, selection. Why do you ignore selection?
Schrafinator, rather than kindly requesting my comments on the relationship of randomness to ns here puts it in this inflamitory way, setting off the charge.
.................Since buz and I have a history, and he already considered me grossly unfair and meanspirited, I don't think it would be useful for me to be the one to put the hammer down in this particular case.
However, I agree that you are completely correct in that buzsaw does repeatedly, chronically violate the forum guidelines, especially 2 and 7, as you point out.
Then here in this post Schrafinator demonstrates her meanspiritedness when after
absolving herself from the case as an administrator,
goes right on in an administrative rant, attacking my posting behaviour, implicating guideline violations.
OoooK comes aboard.
OOOKThis is (as Schraf points out), based purely on personal incredulity.
Parasimonium gets unglued and jumps aboard BIGTIME:
What is the mental block all of you Creationists have with incorporating this utterly basic part of the mechanism of how evolution happens into your minds?
And right here in this thread we see how Schrafinator catches Buzsaw doing it again. I may be risking suspension or even banning for what I am about to do, but I don't care. I think now would be a good time to take that megaphone I have on loan from Dan Carrol, and put it good use. So here goes:
{turns megaphone to max. volume}
BUZSAW IS DISHONEST. HE KNOWS ABOUT SELECTION. YET HE ALWAYS MENTIONS RANDOMNESS ONLY. SINCE HE HAS BEEN TOLD A MILLION TIMES THAT THE MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION CONSISTS OF RANDOM MUTATIONS AND SELECTION, THE FACT THAT HE MISREPRESENTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN ONLY MEAN THAT HE IS DISHONEST. BUZSAW IS DISHONEST. PASS IT ON: BUZSAW IS DISHONEST.
Kisimons piles on:
Well I hope the admins don't suspend you as Buz has it coming. I too have corrected him on the random mutation AND selection thing. He simply chooses to ignore that selection is a vital part of TOE. I agree with you that it is dishonest of him to do so and we shouldn't let him get away with it!
Parasimonium jumps on again, digging in the heels:
But why is Buzsaw getting away, time and again, with his dishonest way of debating? By his own admission, he is aware of selection being a part of evolution:
Accepting the consequences of breaking rule 3, I accuse Buzsaw of repeatedly breaking rules 2 and 7.
Admin Percy declines to make a judgement with general implications that those who repeat et al are in violation of rules and others should simply move on which maybe, though a general statement hinted an implication to me. Imo, it would have been helpful if Percy would have at least admonished Parasimonium for his exceedingly false and meanspirited attack which was, imo, clearly in violation of forum guidelines. At least Percy didn't aquiesce to the false charges implicated. Thanks, Percy.
All the above was there in place before I got around to addressing the arguments in order for the debate to go on in a nonconfrontal manner. The fact is that I was doing some research on the subject so as to respond adequately. Imo, if someone wants some attention the simple noncronfrontive "bump" would be in order rather than all this foolishness. Edited to add: I will be addressing the aspect of randmonness relative to ns soon. If admins think it should be a new topic separate from the bicycle thread, I will prepare an opener for that.
This would have been a good topic for the short topic forum as I hope it will be that -----short. I didn't want to mess up the bicycle thread with this stuff. Thus the new topic.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-29-2005 12:30 PM
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
™ Version 4.2