Proposal for Moose vs. Frog Great Debate

What weapons would you prefer be used, O birthday boy?

Well let's see. Moose are relatively strong but slow and smell bad . Frogs are small but are slippery and agile and can survive under water.I would say use the super Janet Jackson breast exposing Crash jump on his antlers. Then dive into the water. You can distract him by pointing and saying "look behind you, it's SLPx!"

Mammuthus,Feliz cumpleaos, hermano! I hope that tomorrow we can assess the results of your H-D hypothesis testing. I know I've taken the unpopular position that farts actually admit demons into the colon instead of expelling them, but I'm not one to kowtow to conventional wisdom. Mein Zeit wir komm, amigo, if I have to pray until my kneecaps bleed.So you're planning to try to falsify this hypothesis: that a combination of dizziness, loss of motor skills, and having a mixture of red cabbage, lager and bile seeping out of one's mouth and nose into a toilet is evidence of demon possession. That sounds like just the sort of responsible scientific inquiry that the not-so-new millennium needs. Good luck.Remember, they laughed at Tesla and Wegener, too. Vavilov laughed at Lysenko, but I think that was the starvation and hypothermia talking.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Muchas gracias amigo. I will even pray agnostically to the porcelain god of flushing if it comes to that. I am just that dedicated to testing SbY's untestable hypothesis. I cannot guarantee the results will be in (or out) by tomorrow..but by Monday, the demons will be there for all to see..or smell.

Is it just me, or has this thread become a prime example of what Moosey is complaining about in the first place?

Maybe I'll just trick him into licking me. With my secretions, he'll be straight trippin', boo! Yeah, he'll probably try to pin it on me, too.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-05-2004]

Jack:Yes indeed. And you're not the only one put off by this strung-out foreplay of amicable banter.Take the smurf balls off the foil tips and let the games begin.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 02-05-2004]

To me, Crashfrog is the greatest, and most prominent of our prolific evolution side posters. As such, I thought he would be the one, to have a concise discussion with over what I deem to be a serious problem.The short version of my argument:While strives to be a fair place for creationists, in no way can it be said, even in the best of circumstances, that it is "creationist friendly".The evolution side should not "pile on" our limited supply of creationists. Do you expect that a massive (and redundant) assault is going to succeed in "pounding some reason" into their heads? Or is it only going to trigger further irrational behavior?Also, is this "shark feeding frenzy" mentality going to drive off the more rational contingency of the creationist movement? I am inclined to think "Yes".Also, is the dominance and heavy posting by a relatively small number of evolution sided members going to discourage the participation of other evolutionists? Might there be the situation that "After Crashfrog's done, there's little room to say more." If all the other evolution side members decided to sit out for a week, would Crashfrog's normal posting level cover all the creationist sides messages?Then there's the "out of control" topics. 105 new messages in one topic, in 23 hours! What redundancy, looping, etc. is happening? How many of these messages ever get a chance to be read by most of the interested members? What profound individual message might have gotten buried, never to be seen? What profound messages were never posted, because the member had the sanity not to get involved in the frenzy?Continuing on the theme of the previous paragraph, what about the overall bulk of daily messages, in all the active topics? On 2/3 we had 57 active topics, and 501 new messages. What most worthy message was lost in the clutter?I remind you of the "Dealing with waste of time threads and their posters..." topic.Also, Dan Carroll's "POTM" nomination:

quote:

---

Is it possible to nominate a two-poster winner "thread of the month"?

​

Because I'll go with Natural Selection for Mike T. W., the posters in question being DBlevins and Mike the Wiz.

​

No combat, just an honest attempt to teach someone, without any pressure for the person being taught to accept the idea or not before they have (and understand) all the facts.

---

What is the state of , when a topic (rightfully) gets a "POTM" for such reasons?We have a lot of chaos happening, and the evo side can't blame it all on the creationists. Some evo's need to cool their jets also.Well, maybe not so short.Moose (exit rant mode){Edited to add a few more question marks}[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-05-2004]

I'm trying to follow the thoughts on all this, because I'm prone to voting for leaving crash alone, as he's probably my favorite poster. But I do understand the problem with 105 posts in 23 hours, as there are many threads that I just have to skip most of the posts on.You didn't address the fact that NosyNed said he posts more per day than Crash. Why Crash and not Ned?

I think that's wird kommen (or just kommt would do, too).

The second sentence, of my message 1:

quote:

---

This boils down to the point that it is AM's opinion that Crashfrog is part of a significant problem at this forum, in that he posts too many messages.

---

The opening sentence, of my message 23:

quote:

---

To me, Crashfrog is the greatest, and most prominent of our prolific evolution side posters.

---

Also in message 23:

quote:

---

The evolution side should not "pile on" our limited supply of creationists.

---

and

quote:

---

Also, is the dominance and heavy posting by a relatively small number of evolution sided members

---

All "bolds" added here.I thought I was pretty clear, that I didn't think that Crashfrog was the all of what I perceived to be a problem. I just find him to be the most prominent, and thus to be the "representative sample", or perhaps the "gang leader".I do suspect that, overall, Crashfrog does have the most messages per day, although I haven't done specific calculations. Also, I think that NosyNed is less confrontationial in his approach. Crashfrog is blunt (but still proper), Ned is more diplomatic. Indeed, a significant number of the NosyNed postings (both pre and post AdminNosy) are really of moderator nature. This is why Adminnemooseus chose NosyNed as a moderator, and not Crashfrog.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-05-2004]

Well, I think these are valid points, and it's probably reasonable to place me at or near the vangard of a certain type of poster, one who is motivated perhaps more by the intellectual/writing challenge of debate than an altruistic need to educate people.I guess I see posters like me filling a certain niche - we wrestle almost exclusivly with the people with immature arguments. It's not lost on me that my average "opponent" is somewhere around half my age. (I'm 24, if that's never been established.) They're showing up with the PRATT arguments and spoiling for a fight.Are these the people that Minnemooseus, Mammuthus, Percy, and etc. want to deal with all the time? If you ask me, their intellects, expertise, and research are made for better things. Not to mention that they have professional careers that might leave them little time to deflect "lesser" creationists.And when somebody shows up, drops Walt Brown's Top 20, and waves the victory flag in what I tend to think of as "our" territory, are we just supposed to let that go? Personally, the thought of that rankles. But maybe that's immature of me. The other options are to simply say "we've refuted these, but you'll have to look that up yourself" as though we're gatekeepers of knowledge who can't be bothered to share, or to engage them in debate in an attempt to edify.The odds are slim, but there's a chance. Did anyone think we were going to get through to Mike the Wiz when he first showed up? Now, he's no evolutionist now, but he's actually cautioning other creationists about using bogus arguments. In a sense, I think we "cleaned him up" a little. Maybe he feels differently. That's the aim, anyway. It may very well be that instead of deflecting contentless creationists away from the "meaty" posters, we exacerbate the problem by feeding trolls. On the other hand I don't know of any other way to determine the difference between a troll and a genuinely open but misinformed mind except by a littlecare and feeding.I thought this was a sketchy topic for a Great Debate but now I begin to see the merit. Nontheless I don't think I can honestly claim to possess the discipline and organization that a Great Debate requires. Maybe we should chat a little more about it here? As a kind of potential "pre-debate"?

quote:

---

I thought this was a sketchy topic for a Great Debate but now I begin to see the merit. Nontheless I don't think I can honestly claim to possess the discipline and organization that a Great Debate requires. Maybe we should chat a little more about it here? As a kind of potential "pre-debate"?

---

I thought what I was intending to cover at the proposed "Great Debate" was largely covered in this topic. I think Crashfrog was actually conceding point to me (wow!). That's why I let it all drop. I never wanted a real formal "GD", just a one-on-one discussion of the issue(s).Now, with the Desdamona situation we've just gone through, I thought it was time to give this topic a bump.Essentially, I've advocating that our large supply of evolutionists strive to not "pile on" our limited supply of creationists. With Dez, we had an rather extreme fundimentalist, very weak in science, single-handedly going up against quite a number of heavily armed evolutionists. She is/was caught up in a mob of opponents (For those who may not know, there's also Sylas's A little rant for desdamona).I also note that RAZD might well be taking over the title of "most enthusiastic" poster, that I had previously tagged Crashfrog with.I invite those who haven't previously read this topic, to do such. Also, see the "Change in Moderation?" topic, that the Adminnemooseus puts in his signature. Or at least look at the Percy/Admin messages there.Cheers,
Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

I've been trying to post less. I've never wanted the forum to become "EvC, Starring Crashfrog" or anything, but the fact that even new folks can say things like "Oh, that's classic Crashfrog" seems to indicate to me that I'm becoming a force to be reckoned with here. I don't want that. I just want to participate without that participation being detrimental to the spirit of the forum that I enjoy. I realize that you can't participate in a thing without changing that thing, but I don't want to be changing it more than anybody else, you know?I like the debate, and I've got a lot of time on my hands. (Hopefully this will change in a few months when I head back to school to finish my degree.)

I've been wondering what you do all day and all night besides making the rest of us evo's look bad

---

The Laminator

​