Who Obfuscates In This Town?

Once again, I'm needing to answer a charge made by Ms Schrafinator who seems to have this need to belittle me with these nasty little accusations now and then. I hope this stays in the Short Subjects forum as I don't want to make a big thing out of it like what ensued the last time I was needing to answer her charges. I didn't want to draw the Jar/mod thread off more than it has already drifted by answering her there. Schraf, if you were in the shoes of this Biblical fundamentalist creo here in this town, you would need a whole lota patience to deal with the stuff so many evos, agnostics and athiests regard as debating with evidence rather than opinion. And though I'm certainly not campaigning for mod, please don't finger ole buz for frustratingly obfuscating when there's three more fingers pointing right back at you and your ideological friends who are soooooo good at obfuscation in debating me. A good example of this is some of you people who've not done your homework on things like harmony of the gospels, eschatology and other Biblical doctrines. Imo, nobody is more adept at this strategy than Jar himself, our new, ahem, religion moderator in debating religious matters with me. I've spent a whole lot of time dealing with his obfuscating of Biblical stuff since he came to town. I'm not saying I don't obfuscate some. C'mon, woman, we all do our share of it. It makes me very angry though, for you to come at me and single me out when I so frequently have to deal with it from my counterparts in debate.

Could you be more clear in your examples of obfuscation?It is not clear to me that you know what the term means, btw.

To say that this obfuscate of a discussion is a mystery to me, is to say the least.

Ned did I use it correctly?

What in my op gave you the notion, Ned, that I was ignorant of the meaning of the word? The word means to obscure, confuse, bewilder, darken, etc, that which so many of my counterparts are so adept at when debating about such things like certain ever-so-obvious Biblical prophecies.

.................And yes, degreeless ole buz also knows that adept = highly skilled.

Uh, no. You used the verb form where a noun was correct. To say that this obfuscation of a discusion is a mystery to me, is to say the least.Is, I think, correct.But better might be: The obfuscation of this discussion creates a mystery for me, to say the least.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-19-2004 12:32 AM

Good you do seem to have it.Now where are those examples. I don't recall a clear case.What sometimes happens is that the wording isn't very clear or more convoluted than it could have been. I think obfuscation is more extreme and deliberate than that.

I agree wholeheartedly. Tell it to our lady, Schraf.I was thinking this topic should be short, but perhaps it would make an interesting thread in another more lengthy forum where we could get more specific about exactly what it is and how extensively this tactic is used by so many here in town. Since you're wanting me to get more specific maybe the same should be expected of Ms Schrafinator.

quote:

---

Schraf, if you were in the shoes of this Biblical fundamentalist creo here in this town, you would need a whole lota patience to deal with the stuff so many evos, agnostics and athiests regard as debating with evidence rather than opinion.

---

Buz, I know what it's like to be outnumbered. I have been on many discussion boards in which I was the only science-minded person there.

quote:

---

And though I'm certainly not campaigning for mod, please don't finger ole buz for frustratingly obfuscating when there's three more fingers pointing right back at you and your ideological friends who are soooooo good at obfuscation in debating me.

---

Buz, come on now.The truth is, you refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions in similar fashion.You were asked to show that you could in that other thread you started about yourself, and you were unable to.You also tend to drop out of threads when the going gets tough, only to pop up later, in another thread, to say the same thing that was refuted a while back as though that other thread had never happened.Do you really want me to start pulling up examples and posting them here?The charge that I have tried to confuse issues in discussion with you in order to avoid answering direct questions is an interesting one.Care to back it up?

quote:

---

A good example of this is some of you people who've not done your homework on things like harmony of the gospels, eschatology and other Biblical doctrines. Imo, nobody is more adept at this strategy than Jar himself, our new, ahem, religion moderator in debating religious matters with me. I've spent a whole lot of time dealing with his obfuscating of Biblical stuff since he came to town. I'm not saying I don't obfuscate some. C'mon, woman, we all do our share of it.

---

No, Buz, we don't "all do our share".I will agree with you that jar became mighty coy and cute and pretty much stonewalled me in the discussion he and I had regarding gun control.However, for the most part he is very, very clear and responds fully, with examples and facts to back up his claims.I am sad to say that this is not generally how you behave.

quote:

---

It makes me very angry though, for you to come at me and single me out when I so frequently have to deal with it from my counterparts in debate.

---

I am sure it makes you angry buz, and I'm sorry that you are angry.You are so utterly resistant to the idea that you might be wrong that you aren't even aware, I don't think, of the tactics you use to avoid answering questions and debating in good faith.I think you have been honing them your entire life, and quite possibly have never had them pointed out to you before.Percy eloquently, patiently explained it all to you, but he can't make you drink.I know you think that I pick on you, but I think it's because you are so...unrepentant.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2004 08:56 AM

Here's the "When Buz Quits the Thread" thread.Contained within are many examples of obfuscation by buz, both from other threads and within that very thread.http://EvC Forum: WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD -->EvC Forum: WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREADIf I may call everyone's attention, in particular, to Percy's post #79 in that thread.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2004 09:21 AM{Made the "Percy's post #79" a link - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-19-2004 12:52 PM

Wow, I'd forgotten that thread. Just briefly reread it, boy was I ever in high dudgeon!To Buzz: As long as you refuse to debate openly and forthrightly, there's really no reason for you to open yet another thread defending your debating style.The thought just occurred to me that perhaps our insistence that arguments be grounded in evidence places too great a burden upon Creationists here at EvC Forum. TrueCreation, Tranquility Base and Wmscott (and there must be others, but I haven't debated with every Creationist that's ever been here) perhaps came closest to satisfying this requirement by accepting a good deal of the available evidence, but then ultimately failed because of the large amount of evidence they couldn't explain. Even John Paul, in his latest incarnation here as ID Man, couldn't produce evidence from Dembski's form of information theory supporting ID. All he could do was describe the formation process of the bacterial flagellum (over and over and over again) and say it was obvious evidence of design.The majority of Creationists seem to either reject the evidence, or be completely unaware of it. Mostly the latter category, I think. With the rules of evidence we have here at EvC Forum, debaters so ill equipped have no chance at all.--Percy

Schraf, Buz does have a number of bad habits in his discussions. I don't remember that he is a particularly bad obfuscator.Of course,compared to Brad everyone is the model of clarity but that aside I don't think avoiding answering questions is obfuscating. Answering them like Brad would be.

What are you going to class as "obfuscation" ?For instance would trying to nitpick on an issue of exact wording count ?Or dragging up other issues to avoid backing up an obviously false claim ?Buz does both in the thread referenced.To be honest I think it fairer to ask Schraf what she meant and if it is not unreasonable to accept that as the criterion.

Here's my view. Not answering questions is just a single tactic in an array of tactics that Buzz uses, diversion being another favorite. Obfuscation of the issues under discussion is the general result.--Percy