I find it rather amusing that you apparently object far more to the use of that term than you do to the blatant lies to which it was applied. Apparently you can spin stuff out of thin air all day long and still get the McG stamp of approval, but don't you dare use the s-word. None of that 9th commandment business for us - we've got bigger fish to fry here. LOL.
For pete's sake, you could have snipped out the items agreed upon, rather than pasting them into this reply to waste even more space...
But I think you missed an important point -- Thatcherite wasn't exactly "agreeing" with you when he stated that he had seen a particular argument used. You were obviously presenting a list of what you felt were *fallacious*, or at least unfair, arguments from the "FR scientists". On the contrary, he was stating that while such replies have been used, they were *appropriate* responses to the creationist argument they were in reply to. He was *disagreeing* that they belonged on a list of alleged poor behavior by "FR scientists".
and all but one from this thread alone... well done....
Don't pat yourself on the back *too* soon...
2. In your most condescending tone respond to the un-washed using demeaning phases like "you obviously are not up to speed on blah blah" or "anyone who ever studied 8th grade blah blah should know that", etc.
[This argument is also used, usually when the poster throws in a comment that a bright and reasonably well-educated 12 year old would see through. You aren't doing badly so far.]
wrong, see post #180 when argument was lost.. as a last resort claimed TOE never said that.
You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding post #180. And what argument do you believe was "lost" in that discussion? Full Court made a weird accusation about something Haeckel had allegedly predicted, and CarolineGuitarMan rightly asked what relevance that had to anything. CGM also correctly pointed out that since Haeckel's prediction concerned biogenesis, it was off-topic about evolution anyway.
So sorry, your example falls flat. The point about biogenesis not being evolution (and vice versa) was employed correctly, and was *not* in response to "losing" any kind of argument. Furthermore, this "example" DOESN'T EVEN MATCH the "tactic" you listed as an "example" of. Post #180 did not employ the "most condescending tone" or use "demeaning phases [sic]" insulting the poster's education, etc.
Strike one.
4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provocateur and others.
#4. this is an easy one see post #2, this always appears in these EVO/CREVO threads, even ones not initiated by PH.
Nope, sorry, doesn't count as an actual example of your #4. Your description of the alleged tactic involved pinging for "help" if the first three tactics failed. In post #2, PH pinged the evolution list before *any* replies had been made to the thread at *all*, so clearly it couldn't have been made as a result of any "failed" discussion up to that point. Do you even read your own items?
Strike two.
Furthermore, even a ping to the evolution list later in a thread could easily be made for innocent purposes (gosh, pinging evolution folks to a thread that involves evolution, how nefarious!), and not because someone was "losing" and had to "call in the troops". You'll have to find a more clearcut example, if you think you can. Your insulting presumptions about someone's motives don't count as evidence by themselves.
5. Make cute little insulting comments on the open forum to your pinger buddies so the unwashed can see how clever you are behind their backs.
[You're losing it now. "open forum", and "behind their backs"? You're getting more incoherent, I'm afraid.]
It is customary when making a comment about a specific post or poster to ping that poster instead of making cute derogatory remarks that the poster may not see otherwise. Call it an open forum if you like but unless you ping them, in my opinion you're taking about them behind their backs. Some posters don't appreciate being pinged this way (see post 584) but most do.
See post 1093... cowardly or rude.... you make the call
For pete's sake, read for content... While the "he" in that post referred to you, the comment itself wasn't even really *about* you. It was just remarking that if you hypothetically did something *different* from what Thatcherite expected, you'd be behaving more like the typical creationist behavior. How do you misconstrue that an "insulting little comment" aimed at you? It wasn't. It was a swipe at unspecified veteran FR creationists as a group, not at you.
Strike three. ("Yer out!")
Meanwhile, for quite a few examples of clear "insulting comments" and "cute derogatory remarks" against thread participants made without pinging them, there are several good ones in RunningWolf's and sirchtruth's posts... Oh, wait, those are *creationists*, not "FR scientists". Is there any "special" reason you did not take *them* to task for it? *cough*doublestandard*cough*
Oh, and hey, isn't "talking behind their back" what *you* yourself were doing in this post as well as this one on an older thread? "Cowardly or rude.... you make the call."
6. If an un-washed requests sources. Send them a link which contains no useful information, but does allow them to easily purchase books authored by you and your buddies.
[I'd be real interested if you can provide five citations of that ever happening on FR. Hell I'll be real interested if you can provide one, as actually you've just made that one up because you were struggling to extend your list once you'd got past the descriptions of reasonable behaviour on the part of evos.]
#6. If you are suggesting that I "out" FREEPERS who post links to their personal websites or others which contain offers to buy their books, I will decline.
...because you know you can't do it. Back when you posted your first draft of this "list" on 8/10/2005, you were clearly thinking of this prior accusation you had made against Right Wing Professor, based on the flimsiest of excuses (and/or your own paranoia). He had posted some information links for you, and (as you admit later) when you went "noodling around" on links *beyond* the pages he himself had linked, you ran into some advertising spam for books and other things. From *this* flimsy "evidence", you developed your wild speculation that RWP was trying to send people to advertisements for "his" books... Pathetic.
A *BIG* strike four.
I'm sure you've probably already received some personal email to "not go there" on this one
...I'm sure you're being wildly presumptious here based on nothing but your own paranoia about seeing a book advertisement on a linkout-from-a-link...
so I won't press it because I'd hate to have it known they were "fleecing the sheeple".
Bluster, dance, weave... Sorry, but you were caught making an accusation that was groundless and which you can't back up. Face it like an adult, if you're able. What kind of example are you setting for your college-age children?
But I will ask you to think logically about what PHDers do in academia. And if there are as many as claim to be on this thread the statistics alone will lead you to answer your own question.
Hand-wave about "statistics" all you want, you still made an accusation against fellow Freepers that you can't support, and the volume of your excuses and bluster to this item only reveals that you *know* you've been caught at it.
7. Are they still out there? If so it's time to impress them with all the letters you have following your name and all the places you went to school. Challenge them to attend 14 years of grad school so they can be as smart and broke as you are. That should convince them.
See post 656
Nope, sorry. While Coyoteman did mention his degree, it was *not* done for the cheesy purposes you list in tactic #7, nor did he in any way suggest that the person he was speaking to needed to acquire any further education of any sort. Since you missed the context, eleni121 had made an allegation about what "evos" and "academia" allegedly try to do. In that context, Coyoteman's description of his experiences during his academic exposure and training (which to be meaningful required him to list his field and the arc of his education) was *specifically* on topic.
Strike five.
and 651
Okay, I'll bite -- where do you hallucinate that montag813 mentioned his OWN degrees, as was the tactic listed in your #7? Furthermore, from what flimsy evidence have you jumped to the wild conclusion that he is a "FR scientist"? We'll wait...
Strike six.
8. For the really difficult cases just to prove how smart you are and how dumb they are, without responding to their inquiries or arguments, start listing all the words they misspell.
See post 661
It was a JOKE! Sheesh. Nor did it "list all the words" that anyone had misspelled, period. It was just a joke about how "dozens" of Freepers (unnamed, and uncategorized as to belief) had poor spelling and general irrationality. In no way was this presented as any attempt to silence any debater who couldn't be "won" against some other way. Sorry, no match to your #8.
Strike seven.
9. If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proved you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error. Challenge the grammar and intellect of the un-washed. Try to convince them that if they weren't so dumb and illiterate they would have phased the question properly. Upon understanding the issue you would have obviously provided them proper enlightenment.
[Please provide examples of evolutionists actively ducking an issue where they were in error by attacking intellect or grammar. Be specific, explain what error the evo was ducking.]
how about this one from a thread some time back...
now if you could show a fish Genus that never ever had armor to develop it you would have a better case."
you seem to have forgotten the "develop it" part
No, the problem was, your sentence is ungrammatical, and I hadn't figured out what it was you were trying to say. My mistake; I should restrict myself to replying to posts written in English.
You posted such an out-of-context excerpt -- and you formatted it so poorly -- that it was hard to tell *what* in the heck that exchange was about, and who said which lines. I was about to write it off as "too vague to score", but then I noticed it on a thread I had up because I was documenting your own "behind the back" posts (see above), and lo and behold, there it was.
Sorry, but no match again. Your #9 specifically dealt with not just pointing out someone's spelling/grammar problems, but doing so in the case that:
If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proved you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error.Sorry, but Right Wing Professor clearly *did* know the answer, because after it was clarified what in the heck flevit was trying to say, he provided the answer. Clearly, his remark about flevit's grammar was *not* done in the service of avoiding admitting that RWP "doesn't know the answer" (he did) or "proved he made an error" (he hadn't), he had just initially misunderstood the question because it *was* poorly written and hard to parse. His swipe at flevit's grammar was in direct explanation and response to flevit's snide accusation that RWP had "forgotten" to address something. No, he had honestly misunderstood it due to flevit's poor writing.
Strike eight.
and see your response to #8 above.
Thatcherite's observation about the spelling abilities of creationists again does not match the scenario you listed (i.e. using it to avoid admitting error or inability to answer).
Strike nine.
10. And finally, remember how we handle issues of discord in our peer reviews and seminars. When a collegue dares to challenge your findings (like that would ever happen) start sounding righteoulsy indignant and throw some swear words and bad names their way. And make sure your pinger buddies throw some in as well.
See post 634
You have not established that Senator Bedfellow is a "FR scientist" (like you, he mostly comments on matters other than the scientific ones), calling something "bullshit" is bluntly descriptive, but a pretty weak example of "throwing some swear words and bad names" (heck, BS is nearly mainstream these days), Full Court is hardly Bedfellow's "colleague", it wasn't in the context of "peer review and seminars", he wasn't sounding "righteously indignant", he was clearly amused, and he didn't do anything to "make sure his pinger buddies throw some in as well". So although this was marginally closer to a hit than the rest of your attempts, the ways in which it misses your overblown list of qualifiers will have to render my decision on this matter as...
Strike ten.
Zero hits out of ten tries. That's impressive!