Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mike's ego trip
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 82 (188451)
02-25-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by nator
02-25-2005 9:31 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
(To synergetic cohorts; Read Charles's poist - he deserves the title. If his only contributionis are worthless attacks that is.)
Shraff, I answered your post the other day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 9:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 9:50 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 82 (188453)
02-25-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by AdminJar
02-25-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Charles Knight subtitle
Charles Knight writes:
Iread it and thought you were talking a load of bollocks
Jar, this was also wrongful. Why didn't you tell him off? Don't abuse your powers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AdminJar, posted 02-25-2005 9:34 AM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AdminJar, posted 02-25-2005 9:42 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 82 (188455)
02-25-2005 9:39 AM


I feel the need to explain a few things to the synergetic mob hunting for freash witch meat.
I've been called an ass-hat and an idiot many times at EvC. I never moaned about it. Why is it Jar jumps through atheist hoops everytime one gets out of one's pram? If Jar can only be an evo's gimp then he shouldn't be an admin.

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 82 (188456)
02-25-2005 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:37 AM


Re: Charles Knight subtitle
Because that is an analysis of the content of your post. Frankly, a very reasonable one. Your subtitle though was not about content but rather an attack on the individual. In addition it was not even related to the content of the post it headed.
Mike, grownups understand the difference between criticism of someone's position or messages and personal attacks. It's time that you too learned the difference.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:37 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:46 AM AdminJar has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 82 (188457)
02-25-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AdminJar
02-25-2005 9:42 AM


Re: Charles Knight subtitle
Jar, his post was an attack. It's time you didn't cover it up for him. It didn't deal with any contents in my post. If you can't take a bit of action back at you then what does that say about you guys?
Okay - sorry Charles, your post is ass-hattery. Is that better? Does it not meet you criteria?
Infact - justify why my post is a load of "bollocks".
Did you even understand it Jar? I doubt it.
If you think I'm going to sit here and swallow every piece of crap that comes my way without hitting back, then think again. This is your show - so you can deal with it.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-25-2005 09:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AdminJar, posted 02-25-2005 9:42 AM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 9:49 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 82 (188459)
02-25-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:46 AM


Speaking now in non-admin mode.
Mike writes:
Did you even understand it Jar? I doubt it.
You are correct Mike. I did not understand it. It was disjointed and more a stream of conciousness than a reasoned argument. I believe I understand the basics of your point of view but I can honestly say that you totally failed to get the point across in message 60.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:46 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:57 AM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 82 (188460)
02-25-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:35 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
quote:
Shraff, I answered your post the other day.
I've just had a look.
It's true that you answered the post, but you didn't answer the question.
Ohnhai's reply to you poses all of the questions you need to address regarding how it is you think you know that NDE's happen simultaneously with or after brain death, so I will look for your reply to that post for an answer to the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:35 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 10:00 AM nator has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 82 (188464)
02-25-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
02-25-2005 9:49 AM


Re: Speaking now in non-admin mode.
The explanation is in the rest of my posts in that thread. Of which no one attending this topic has probably read, or understood according to the falsification parameters.
Has an animal created a natural morphologically endowed trait it has NOT got?
No one has provided the answer. No one can because it doesn't make a conclusion that they want it to make. The conclusion is that the reality is, that only humans can artificially create a morphologically endowed trait they have not got. THAT is why my post is good - because of it's logic. Nothing super - just a bit of worthy postage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 9:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 82 (188466)
02-25-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
02-25-2005 9:50 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
Shraff, maybe you haven't noticed how many posts I responded to in that thread.
The evo doesn't have to answer to anyone. It's 1 on the crowd for the creo, and the crowd on the 1 for the evo. So surely you can see that I cannot respond to every whim in the evo machine?
Didn't I answer the question though? If became alive when the experience ended, after being clinically dead, then logically they must have been brain dead for somewhat of the experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 9:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 02-25-2005 10:10 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 31 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 3:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 25 of 82 (188468)
02-25-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 10:00 AM


Dogpiling
Dear Mike,
Perhaps you should refuse to debate en masse in the normal forums, perhaps it would be better to enter into 1-on-1s in the 'Great Debate' forum. This should remove the problem of being bombarded with evo questions and allow for a more focussed debate, you could also rely on more strictly defined boundaries of moderation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 10:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 82 (188469)
02-25-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:57 AM


Re: Speaking now in non-admin mode.
Has an animal created a natural morphologically endowed trait it has NOT got?
What does that mean? That is the heart of the problem. That sentence has no meaning or if there is any meaning within it it is so well hidden as to be incomprehensible.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 27 of 82 (188478)
02-25-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
02-24-2005 7:35 PM


Mike the Wiz-hat (sorry, couldn't help myself...)
What amazes me about you Pinky, is how much you insist that I am "refuted" or that "he was refuted", or that my position was "falsified".
I was not the only one to refute your logic or your claims - there was a half-a-dozen others in the fray. Aximilli (sp?) countered your posts with some very level-headed explanations towards the end of the thread, perhaps even POTM-worthy.
Percy, this wasn't a particularly evo versus creo thread in all honesty. It was about accepting the blatant reality that humans are a bit different from animals. Even a "bit" please, pretty please?
I think this shows how delusional your view of the discussion was - your argument was that humans were "uniquely different", not a "bit different". This is particularly frustrating at this point since I said at least a dozen times in the thread in question that humans were quite different from all other species.
Early on you in the discussion you locked on to a human quality that you called "obvious", "invisible", and that made humans "uniquely different". When this quality as you presented it was demonstrated to exist in other animals, you continued to pound away at defending it.
I think other, more specific qualities such as religion/spirituality, or grammar/written language, are more defensible as "unique" to humans, and I told you so in the thread.
I also quite enjoy the Rockhound's quality of "using tools to make tools". It is something I am going to think about.
My point to all this is that I never claimed to have "refuted" the fact that humans may be uniquely different. I simply feel that I, and others, refuted the claim that only humans use reason and technology to exceed their "natural" capabilities/morphology.
Your use of repetitious, ambiguous claims did not further this argument once refuted; and if it was indeed not your argument, then your (continued) repetitious, ambiguous posts lead to misinterpretation of your argument, and thus are not worthy of POTM.
try and understand message #60.
If a dozen or more people read the message, and all misunderstand it, then perhaps you should consider that it is the content of the post, rather than the mindset of the readers, that is leading to the misunderstand.
(By the way, though firmly entrenched in "naturalistic fantasy land," I've never been nominated for POTM, and I'm not crying about it...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 02-24-2005 7:35 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 11:17 AM pink sasquatch has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 82 (188482)
02-25-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by pink sasquatch
02-25-2005 11:04 AM


Re: Mike the Wiz-hat (sorry, couldn't help myself...)
I simply feel that I, and others, refuted the claim that only humans use reason and technology to exceed their "natural" capabilities/morphology.
Your use of repetitious, ambiguous claims did not further this argument once refuted;
That's your strawman version of my argument.
My position is [A]. That only humans have artificially created morphological traits they haven't got(physical attributes).. And THAT is how we are uniquely different. I argue our ability.
Your position is [B] - as quoted above.
Refuting argument [B] doesn't refute argument [A].
I have told you many times what my argument means. It is nothing to do with technology making us different. To continue to strawman when I have clarified my specific position (message #23) precedingly in this very thread is to be dishonest.
If a dozen or more people read the message, and all misunderstand it, then perhaps you should consider that it is the content of the post, rather than the mindset of the readers, that is leading to the misunderstand.
If a dozen or or more people read your posts and all don't nominate you for POTM, then perhaps you should consider it is the content of your posts.
If a dozen or more people are nazi murderers and you aren not, then does that make them right and you wrong?
If Einstein's theories were ignored, does that make him wrong and a group of synergetic cohorts correct?
Infact, you are arguing quantitively here, which is a big no no remember.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-25-2005 11:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-25-2005 11:04 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-25-2005 1:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 29 of 82 (188485)
02-25-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Charles Knight is an ass hat
...the character of irrefutable brilliance in which I embody.
Well a highly polished spoon has ‘the character of irrefutable brilliance’ but I would not expect it to vote for itself.
It is simply not good form to nominate oneself for POTM. Peer nomination is the way it is, and has been done. As it's is accepted as simple good form not to nominate your own posts there isn’t a rule against it because it just simply isn’t done. I have written several post I though were pretty damn cool yet I didn’t nominate them for POTM.
And as to the worthiness of post #60 the ideas were neither original, concise, or well written. And if you look around then you will find that many of our supposed unique abilities are being discovered in other animals, from tool use, tool manufacture/modification, cooperation beyond simple hunting strategies to reciprocity.
In short post #60 falls well short of being POTM material despite your obvious pride in it.
Bad form Sir.
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 25 February 2005 16:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 9:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 30 of 82 (188514)
02-25-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
02-25-2005 11:17 AM


Mike's arguments in the dimension of time
I simply feel that I, and others, refuted the claim that only humans use reason and technology to exceed their "natural" capabilities/morphology.
That's your strawman version of my argument. My position is [A]. That only humans have artificially created morphological traits they haven't got(physical attributes).. And THAT is how we are uniquely different. I argue our ability.
Mike, you are being a bit silly here. "Artificially created morphological traits" is a new form of your argument first brought up in this thread. To say I was arguing a strawman in the previous thread because I wasn't arguing agains a version of your argument that you hadn't come up with yet is ridiculous.
And I ask, what is the specific difference between "artificially created morphological traits", and my supposed strawman version, "using reason and technology to exceed natural capabilities/morphology."
I have told you many times what my argument means. It is nothing to do with technology making us different. To continue to strawman when I have clarified my specific position (message #23) precedingly in this very thread is to be dishonest.
Such ass-hattery. You are faulting my comments about the original thread because they don't pertain to First, this is a thread about the nature of the argument in another thread, and not the argument itself (in fact you yourself stated that earlier and refused to comment on Rockhound's input).
Your new, anything-but-clarified version of your concept should be entered into the original thread.
And as I believe jar stated earlier, "artificially created morphological traits" is quite unclear. I read it as, for example, "genetic engineering to give humans wings", which I am quite sure is not what you mean.
If a dozen or or more people read your posts and all don't nominate you for POTM, then perhaps you should consider it is the content of your posts.
I do. I never said otherwise...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2005 11:17 AM mike the wiz has 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