WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD

Percy, I just want to say that nobody, and I mean nobody, delivers a smackdown like you do.But I also want to say that I think that the effort you are putting into helping buzsaw improve his debate skills {whether he wants to improve or not) is impressive and generous.It's easy to just write people like him off as unrepentant, unreformable cranks, but for you (and me) hope springs eternal.

Hi, Mike!Yeah, we're pounding on ol' Buzz pretty good, but I feel like we're mere gnats pinging against tank armor. Buzz has had a good long time to perfect his defensive style of "I have no idea what you're talking about, you couldn't be more wrong". The current level of blunt criticsim was only reached after more mild forms failed to communicate any message. As Schraf said back in Message 55, "You forget that I wasn't always as abrupt and blunt with you. Back in the day, I was quite patient, but I quickly learned that your tendency is to not debate honestly and in good faith."Buzz is like a bank vault disguised as a normal door. You go up to enter the door, but the door's locked. You knock, but no one answers. You bang louder and louder, but no answer. You try to break down the door, but it won't give. Pretty soon you're using battering rams, but the door doesn't give, because it's actually a bank vault. But onlookers see only a normal door and wonder why on earth you're attacking a poor old door with a battering ram. Well, just look at the sorry shape of the battering ram and you'll see that that door ain't any old normal door.If you really believe that the criticisms of Buzz are unfounded and unfair then you could be really helpful in this discussion by taking the examples provided of Buzz cutting and running, of Buzz obfuscating and avoiding, and of Buzz maneuvering and evading, and showing how none of these were really the case. Short of this you're just a cheerleader and enabler, not a participant.--Percy

In this case mike reminds me of the parent of a really badly-behaved teenager who, instead of instructing their child to take responsibility for their poor behavior and take the consequences, he instead makes excuses for them and tries to convince everyone that their child couldn't possibly deserve what they are getting.

Percy, I said I wanted to put this thread to rest. You are the one who admonished me for opening it in the first place and now you seem intent on drawing me back into it. If I don't come back, I'm sure to be cutting and running and if I get back into it, whatever I say will be fodder for another meanspirited lecture about my conduct rather than you addressing the specific charges you are leveling by citing the specific charges and exactly what you are talking about as to my conduct in relation to those specific cases. This generalized charge of violating the spirit of the forum rules rather than the letter doesn't cut it so far as justice goes, Percy. That's what they do in kangaroo courts. Either I'm breaking the rules or I'm not. Isn't that why they're written, for the protection of the one charged with violation as well as the judge? I'd hate to have a judge in court who operated on your version of justice. I have asked you to go to my op and critique specifics I have posted in my defense, but no, all you care to do is malign my character by these generalized bogus charges that you have not been willing to document and that my accusers have failed to document also, though they tried their best.Members of the forum don't seem to mind debating me, else why do threads often get red hot when I get into them? If Schraf and froggy don't like my style, why don't they leave me alone and go talk to someone else whose style they can tolerate? You accuse me of going on and on about stuff and you accuse me of leaving too soon. I can't please you, Percy, so why should I waste my time trying?Paul comes on here claiming he kicked buzz's butt by his nonsensical notion that all the events covered in the Olivet Discourse of the gospels fits into one generation. He's bucking the vast majority of schooled Biblical eschatology scholars with his silly hypotheseis, but that's just fine with you. When I buck the mainstream schooled prefessionals I'm this very bad obnoctuous member conducting myself very unacceptibly. Others perform as badly, but no, you've gotta single out a creo fundie who gives the debaters a run for their money to punish and tone down, all the while narry a peep of criticism for conduct of your own coombodies. .......for example? As I understand forum guidelines, you should do what you require of me and cite examples so we can discuss them. This's what is demanded of me, is it not? Yah, right, Percy, right. Well I've quit sanctimoneously sinning here. Does that make you feel better about me, or is that going to infuriate you all the more? Percy, hows about you going back to the Exodus threads and count how many times we had to keep on keeping on responding to the same ole same ole by some of our counterparts and get back to me about how my record stands in comparison in this regard? Example please, and would staying on actual points stray off course from main topic or is actual point relevant enough to continue on? Percy, please be fair for a change and document where in this thread I claim perfection or implicate claim of never doing wrong. I came on this thread to answer specific charges by my accusers who have failed thus far to substantiate those charges.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-05-2004 11:51 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

quote:

---

Percy, I said I wanted to put this thread to rest.

---

Maybe I'm not that bright, but I liked message 1 of this topic. I may even have been inclined to give it a POTM nomination.Shall we go for final closing remarks, if you already haven't done such?Adminnemooseus

Like Percy says, though, the problem isn't that you're not in-line with some stuffy academics. The problem is that you say things that are wrong. Flat-out wrong. As in, "contradicted by reality."When we correct you and support those corrections with evidence, you ignore us. Later we're astonished to find you repeating the very same falsehoods in other threads, or even in the very next message. Or else you just cut and run altogether. Because as long as you're here saying stupid, wrong things, Schraf and I are going to be here to correct you.

In other words there is NOTHING in the text that puts the destruction of the Temple at the beginning. I was right and you know it.So much for any claim that you are careful with the truth.And quite frankly if you think a reply that angrily repeats a failed response to a different argument altogether is an adequate answer you ARE a "buligerent [sic] idiot".

Lying again Buz ?

quote:

---

Paul comes on here claiming he kicked buzz's butt by his nonsensical notion that all the events covered in the Olivet Discourse of the gospels fits into one generation

---

I came into this thread with the point that the Olivet Discourse is about events LEADING UP TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.Read this again
EvC Forum: WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREADAnd this (start of a thread referred to as an example where Buz ran away)
http://EvC Forum: Prophecy Revisited: Israel's Destiny? -->EvC Forum: Prophecy Revisited: Israel's Destiny?And you won't answer that.This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-06-2004 04:56 AM

I think this post deserves an answer.This is a clear example of a double standard.When applying the concept of falsifiability to evolution Dembski demands something that absolutely cannot be reconciled with evolutionary theory.When applying the concept to ID he asks only that one argument FOR intelligent design should be shown to be inadequate.Of course both his criteria are wrong. A scientific theory is never falsified by a single anomaly unless it can be shown to be absolutely inconsistent with the theory. But that is because a scientiifc theory is supported by a vast mass of data so a single data point is almost never adequate. This is especially true in evolution where the details of evolutionary history must be reconstructed with very limited information - any argument based on demanding those details is inevitably weak. And this is what Orr meant.
What is needed is a large array of good quality data - and a better theory that accounts for it. Which ID is not even INTENDED to do.As for ID, there is no reason why an intelligent designer would necessarily design life along lines that are inaccessible to evolution. So by the standard Dembski applies to evolution ID cannot be falsified at all. Indeed, so long as ID maintains it's policy of excluding the intentions and capabilities of the proposed "designer" from it's hypotheses there is no concievable data that could falsify it by the standard Dembski uses when he talks of evolution. And yet that same refusal is probably the only thing which saves ID from falsification - or at least exposure as an unscientific ad hoc hypothesis.

Hi Buzz,What another fine example of evasion. You're replying to my reply to Schraf, Message 119. There's nothing wrong with that, doing that is just fine, except that that's your only message. I posted another message after I replied to Schraf, and it was a reply to you - you've completely ignored it, Message 120. Why don't you reply to that, and I'll address this message (your Message 124) in another post.--Percy

Thank you! Thank you so much, Moose, for a forthright honest opinion in such a hostile environment for me among some of your ideological friends here in town. I read you post three times before responding to make sure it wasn't a dilusion of my vision. May God bless you!
As for closing statements, it appears that is not wanted by Percy yet and I will try to address his concerns adequately before putting this to rest.

I forget my exact words, but it was an expression of disbelief and incredulity. I was just amazed that you could be so blind to your own pecadillos that you would do something so stupid as to open a thread attempting to justify your debating style. Have you and WillowTree ever gotten into a discussion? If so, someone please refer me to that thread, because it would be truly incredible to see two insensible forces meet head on. Before the criticism became meanspirited you simply ignored it or misinterpreted it or in some way confounded it. As both Schraf and I have told you, you forced us to increase the intensity and bluntness of the criticism because we couldn't even get you to even merely acknowledge the criticism, let alone respond to it. Now you're finally acknowledging it, but only to note it's meanspiritedness. But will you actually address the points we're trying to communicate? Apparently not. It's still Buzz-speak. I have written many posts as Admin describing how if we had a set of Forum Guidelines that identified every possible miscue that it would be so long that no one would ever read it, and so I have repeatedly and at length requested that people follow the spirit of the guidelines. Like I said earlier, the raison d'etre of EvC Forum is to provide a venue where productive discussion has a better chance than at other boards. I encourage all members to keep that goal in mind. I often tell people with these kinds of issues to read Message 36. On the contrary, they're not bogus, we have an example right in this thread. You're ignoring the falsifiabilty issue right now. It's not like the wheels turning in your head are invisible, Buzz - everyone can see them. You've just strategized that playing the "Ole Poor Buzz" card is likely to bring a better return than responding to the challenge to respond forthrightly to the falsifiability issue, and now you're implementing that strategy. With you Buzz it's always pick and choose what you want to respond to and ignore the rest. As you go through your obfuscative routine the members become as red hot as the activity bar. Your threads attract attention because it is human to be unable to resist correcting obvious error, especially when compounded as you're in the habit of doing. I earlier referred you to Message 36, here's a relevant excerpt: Sure, Buzz. As I said earlier, we have the example of falsifiability of the supernatural right in this thread. Go to it. Defend yourself by providing an example of a forthright response to the rebuttals. Show us that just this one time you can actually do it. I know it goes against all your instincts and everything you believe in, but come on Buzz, give it a try, just this once.--Percy Fix typos. --PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 09-06-2004 10:05 AM

I'm only a participant in this thread, not a moderator. I'll abide by whatever the moderators decide.--Percy

quote:

---

whatever I say will be fodder for another meanspirited lecture about my conduct rather than you addressing the specific charges you are leveling by citing the specific charges and exactly what you are talking about as to my conduct in relation to those specific cases.

---

quote:

---

I have asked you to go to my op and critique specifics I have posted in my defense, but no, all you care to do is malign my character by these generalized bogus charges that you have not been willing to document and that my accusers have failed to document also, though they tried their best.

---

But I gave you specific examples in posts #54 and #59 of times that you refused to answer specific questions related to your claims, dismissed relevant issues out of hand with no accompanying explanation, and then just stopped answering altogether.I even provided cut n pastes of the actual exchanges, pst numbers, forum titles, etc.Why don't you address those examples?

quote:

---

If Schraf and froggy don't like my style, why don't they leave me alone and go talk to someone else whose style they can tolerate?

---

I don't really debate to change the mind of people I am debating with.I debate you, no matter how frustrating it is, because of the fence-sitting lurkers.I figure that if your arguments, and method of argument, can so easily be shown to be false, and flawed, the people who are unsure about which side is right will see that.I am also just a very persistent lover of truth and will address falsehood whenever I see it.Lastly, I just like to argue, especially when I have the data and logic to back it up.

I believe I gave reason for the above quote of mine. Correct me if wrong. Why do you isolate it from that context? Don't I have a right to express my opinion without being admonished for doing so, as if I am out of order? Isn't this what we all do here is offer our arguments and opinions about things? As with some input by each and everyone of us, some of our views can be supported by hard evidence and some can't. If you can be specific with something here, I'll post a response. Otherwise, please stop repeating this bogus undocumented stuff that's been repeated adnausium by you people. It's this meanspirited conduct on the part of you and Schraf that brought the need for this thread in the first place. Stupid and wrong are relative words in forums, aren't they CF? Others of us think stuff you and Schraf say are stupid and wrong as well. Think about it before casting the next stone.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz