WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD

Have you even read the thread Brian? It's about when Buzsaw quits a thread - yes. Not "slaughter him in anyway you can". It shouldn't be an excuse to justify attacking a person. You being a former admin, should know this.

Of course I have read it, I really haven't seen any unjust claims against Buz. But Buz has broad shoulders, I am sure he can handle it, and if he cannot, then he will ignore it I think we need a sense of context Mike.Do you think peoples' opinions here has any detrimental affect on Buz's life? It is only people's opinions after all.Brian.

My point is that it's a consistent and continious attack of one individual. It serves no purpose, and yet it seems justified by everyone on your side coincidentally. He is the one against the many. Neither shall he fear when thousands around about him are against him if God is for him.I am not concerned that he can't take it, if anything he has shown he can, but why should he?

I haven't had a go at Buz. Geez Mike, we have all been in situations like this before. Because people use up some of their precious time to respond to him only to find that he ignores most of their points?

Well, we'll have to disagree then. My opinion is only one, but I still think what I said stands. I think if you're reasonable, you can see that they've had at him like a pack of starving hounds. Then agree with me.

Doesn't mean I won't

Have you considered the irony of using the very same evasive techniques you're accused of using to deny you use them.No one described your views in such kind terms. We didn't say they were outside mainstream science. We said they were wrong. But you didn't produce documentation. What you provided was irrelevant. But that's just the kind of thing you always do. You don't really want to debate the correctness of your statement, so you just post an irrelevant cut-n-paste so you can divert discussion to you making a case that your cut-n-paste was too relevant. After a little discussion on that you'll again make some clearly wrong statement about your cut-n-paste, and then discussion will be diverted yet further as you defend it endlessly. This pretty much guarantees that discussions with you generally go nowhere, which I guess satisfies you pretty well. Thanks for the warning.I generally am not as hard on people as I am on you, but you are incredibly obtuse, and I find that the only chance I have of you understanding what I'm saying is to be just as blunt and direct as is humanly possible. It isn't your views that people perceive as the problem, it is your incredibly obfuscative and frustrating way of defending them. Getting you to forthrightly address a point is harder than getting a politician to answer a direct question. You have to let go of your incredibly strong need to never be shown wrong and instead make it your goal to try to understand the topics you're trying to discuss.--Percy

OK, Percy, whatever you say. The documentation link is irrevelant and my conduct is improper. I concede to my you and my other accusers and apologize for the thread. Have a good evening.

Thanks very much, Mike, my dear cyber brother. May God RICHLY bless you for your kind words at a time when I really needed them.Thanks also to Pecos George and others for their kindness and understanding. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-04-2004 10:15 PM

if it wasn't for you, WILLOWTREE, whatever, and Ken there wouldn't be half as much to laugh at around here. Some of us appreciate what you provide.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ya know sometimes your REAL friends are the ones that are telling you that you're making a mistake.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I think this is ample evidence that infact INDEED Buz is getting a hard time because of his views. He is a creationist who stands by his creationsim, and you KNOW you hate the fact that he won't relent, and become atheist/evo.

---

No, mike, buz makes factual claims that are false.Then, when he is shown ample, voluminous evidence, both factual and logical, that he is wrong about his factual claim, he then gives everybody the runaround by avoiding addressing the issues raised, obfuscating, and generally not debating hoonestly.Then he disappears, only to make the same claim in another thread at another time.I would have no problem at all with his saying, "I know the evidence contradicts what I believe, but I believe it anyway."That view I have no argument with, but this is not what buzsaw does.

quote:

---

How his character of posting has anything to do with it fails me. If it had anything to do with it - show me some evo's who've got hammered in a similar fashion!

---

Contracycle, an evo, got completely hammered in the "racist/sexist jokes" thread.

quote:

---

He seems to have addressed everyone(Buz), and even had the good manners to make a topic to explain how he has other things to do.

---

And you will see in this very thread, unless you choose to ignore it, that several of us have encouraged and thanked buz for letting us know he isn't ditching but is busy.

quote:

---

And yet you people take it in turn to whip him publickly for no erring.

---

I don't understand the meaning of "for no erring".

quote:

---

The fact is Schraff, that creos can learn about evolution, but they don't necessarily have to come around to your way of thinking, and accept it. THAT is what gets your goat.

---

If a cre says to me, I understand that all of the facts point towards evolution happening, but I choose to believe in literal Biblical creationism anyway." I really don't have an argument....but that's not what buzsaw is doing. He is making false factual claims, and I am addressing and correcting those factual claims on a debate forum. Remember that this is a forum for debate.It is buzsaw's choice to try to defend these false claims of his. It is his choice to ditch threads, and it is his choice to repeatedly bring up the same falsehoods in other threads as if those other refutations had never taken place.

quote:

---

What I see here is a public butchering of an individual, with no let up, and no pity nor regard for the rules of forum whatsoever - "don't attack the person". I would be totally ashamed to keep hounding someone in this "hunt him" fashion.

---

Can you please show where anyone in this thread has attacked buzsaw personally?I have seen attacks on and critiques of his behavior, but none of his person.I have also seen many examples of WHAT BUZ ASKED FOR; exaples of when he ditched threads.Please remember that Buzsaw opened this thread himself, and asked for evidence himself, and is continuing in this discussion himself.

quote:

---

What ever happened to "thou shalt not judge". Maybe we should re-name the thread, "Judging Buzsaw". And I am NOT screwing around, I am genuinely angry at this moral low.

---

I don't think you have gotten that particualar Biblical phrase right.I believe the entire admonition goes something like "Judge not, lest ye be judged."So, it isn't telling us that we aren't allowed to judge others, but that if we do, we should be prepared to be judged in return.I am prepared for anyone to judge my behavior here. I am certainly not perfect by any means, and I think I know my strengths and weaknesses in debate pretty well. I doubt the criticisms would surprise me much.

The line between critisizing a person and critisizing their behavior can be a fine one. I have been extremely critical of Buzz in this thread. Without reviewing my posts in this thread, I think I recall describing his behavior as maneuvering, evasive, obfuscative and probably more. After all this time that Buzz has been here I'm not sure I can legitimately claim I believe he's a fine person, that he's just got a few behaviors that he should clean up, but that's what I *do* believe, otherwise it would be hopeless calling these behaviors to his attention.But it isn't like this is the first time people have tried to make Buzz aware of his little foibles. I don't think Buzz is aware he is using a well-known style of debate that is meant to confuse issues by diverting attention onto unrelated details. Buzz is happy when he can make it impossible for anyone to figure out what a thread is about. When he gets severely critisized for this he becomes very polite and takes on an "above the fray" tone, thereby committing the sin of sanctimony (that is a sin, right? ). In fact, his skill in self-indulgent defense is reflective of the great amount of experience he's had at it.If we analyze Buzz's behavior with an eye toward the Forum Guidelines I think it is pretty clear he isn't in violation of the letter, but certainly of the spirit. I don't think he's in violation of this guideline, for example, but he certainly isn't following the spirit:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

Perhaps this is the guideline he comes closest to violating:

1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

But he pretty much stays on topic, he just won't stay on the actual point currently under discussion, usually a point he introduced himself.By the way, I, too, make no claims to perfection. But then, I didn't start a thread whose purpose was to claim I never do anything wrong.--Percy

Just for purposes of illustration, why don't you show us you can compose a forthright rebuttal to the replies to your statement from Message 30: Messages addressing this point were Message 45, Message 55, Message 85 and Message 99. Compose a one or two paragraph response explaining why the supernatural is falsifiable, and provide an example or two of ways it could be falsified. Do not make a literal interpretation of your colloquial form of expression, as you did in one post. Do not cut-n-paste from somewhere else. Do not take a Talmudic Clintonesqe approach that engages in such travesties as depending upon what the definition of the word "is" is (Clinton was found in contempt of court for this, by the way).This is not meant to change the topic of the thread to falsifiability. If you accept this challenge, Buzz, then contributors to this thread are advised to comment on whether your reply is forthright and constructive, and not whether they agree with the content.In composing this message I reread the thread. Commenting on my own behavior, I see I started out mild and became more and more blunt as my points failed in each and every case to get across. This thread is an excellent example of what you do. Instead of asking why, for example, I perceive you as obtuse and then us exploring that, you just go on to something else, or as now, announce that you are disengaging.If I can pat my own back for a minute, the difference between you and me is that when someone gets mad at me, one of the questions I ask myself is, "What did I do wrong." My online persona is much different today than 30 years ago (I date back to the ArpaNet when mostly only universities were on the net). I'm probably still annoying, but you should have seen me a while back. In other words, I've taken feedback and made changes that, hopefully, were improvements. I get the feeling that when someone gets mad at you, your response is, "They misunderstood, I did nothing wrong, let me explain." And explain and explain and explain. But actually address the issue? No.So prove me wrong and, at least just this once, forthrightly address something.--Percy