[...and none of my refutation of your post relies on any such omniscience,]
So, clairvoyance is an omniscience?
Word nitpicking -- how childish.
Where does that put paleontology?
It's a science.
But I digress....
I've gotten used to that by now.
We'll start with your clairvoyance and move on from there...
Learn to read, I said that my posts do *not* require clairvoyance. They require reading comprehension, long experience with human behavior, and the ability to form conclusions about the author's meaning and intent from the words he writes. In other words, the same thing *everyone* does with respect to written communication.
Which makes it all the more ludicrous when you repeatedly play your childish, coy game of "gosh, how could you *possibly* draw any conclusions from reading someone's post, unless you were clairvoyant?" You're just behaving like a puerile jackass.
[You were obviously presenting a list of what you felt were *fallacious*, or at least unfair, arguments from the "FR scientists"]
Do you know what my "feelings" were when I wrote this list or when I re-posted it on this thread. Which was it?
Don't be coy, kid, you're not very good at it. If my conclusion about the nature of your list was incorrect in some way, feel free to clear it up by stating what its nature actually is. If my conclusion *wasn't* incorrect, then stop playing childish evasion games, concede the point, and move on.
Do you want to have something resembling an adult discussion, or do you want to be a jerk about it? Your choice. But so far, you've done a remarkably crappy job of holding up your end of the conversation, throughout the thread. It appears you'd rather "score points" by some rules that exist only in your head, rather than reach an understanding, or change a mind, or learn something, or whatever.
[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".]
Did he say the responses were "appropriate"?
Yes, he did. We're back to that "basic reading comprehension" thing again. Let's look at his first response to you, shall we?
[darbymcgill:] 1. First make the oblicatory comment that the un-washed obviously are not aware of the scientific method.To anyone able to read standard English, it's clear that Thatcherite is saying that creationists are most commonly told that they "aware of the scientific method" (your words) when "the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method" (Thatcherite's words). In short, such a comment is used when it's *appropriate* -- when it's a correct and accurate description of the reason for the poster's misunderstanding.[Thatcherite:] I have seen this argument used. Most commonly when the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method.
Now, was that *really* so hard to grasp, or were you just being coy and childish again by pretending not to see it?
Did you ask him?... Did he say he was disagreeing with me? Did you ask him or read his mind?
Did you miss that "reading comprehension" thing? It's a remarkable method by which people can (*gasp*) ascertain a writer's meaning without actually quizzing them about it or reading their mind. It's been all the rage for several thousand years now. They even teach it in schools. I'm sure you can do it too, if you try hard enough.
But hey, since you're unable to do it yourself, and too skeptical to accept my reading of plain English prose, let's go for a tiebreaker and do something revolutionary; Hey, Thatcherite, was my understanding of your remark correct? This twit questions my reading ability, so could you clear it up for him?
[even a ping to the evolution list later in a thread could easily be made for innocent purposes]
Do you know why someone hits the ping list?
Yes I do, at least in PatrickHenry's case.
Do you ask them?
No need, I've known him for over three years, and been privy to countless of his decisions about when to ping or not ping the evolution ping list. But again, if you question my judgment, let's put it to the test instead of playing your childish games: Hey, PatrickHenry, when you pinged the evo list in post #2 in this thread, did you do so for innocent reasons (so evolutionists could check into a thread on evolution if they chose), or did you do so for the nefarious motives imputed to you by darbymcgill, to wit:
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.It seemed clear enough to me that, as I already said earlier:
Nope, sorry, doesn't count as an actual example of [darbymcgill's] #4. [Darbymcgill's] 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.But hey, darbymcgill seems to have his *own* delusions of actual clairvoyance, because he used your ping in post#2 as an example of someone fulfilling darbymcgill's scenario in #4, *despite* the obvious logical problems inherent in such a conclusion (described above). So darbymcgill *must* have arrived at such a counterintuitive conclusion via reading PatrickHenry's mind. Or, come to think of it, as a result of darbymcgill's blind bias which is able to overcome mere logical consistency...
Oh, BTW, why did you hit it on this response? hmmmmm
I pinged the people whose posts were being discussed in this interminable back-and-forth. Duh. Paranoid much?
[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.]
This one is classic, a double not only by you but him. He refers to me 3 times in one sentence and you say he was really talking about someone else. He places me next to his straw man (Creationist company) and associated insults then doesn't even have the courtesy to ping me. You change the definition of "he, he'd, and his" in direct response to a post made TO me into a hypothetical generalization about someone completely different... good... a double double... BTW did you ask him if he meant "hypothetical"....???
Yup, *definitely* paranoid. The astute reader is invited to examine the exchange in question and decide for himself whether *Dimensio*'s reply should be read as an insult aimed at darbymcgill, or as a swipe at the prior behavior of FR creationists:
[Thatcherite, to darbymcgill:] Feel free to fail to back up your claims. You'll be in fine creationist company numerous times on this thread alone.[Dimensio, to Thatcherite:] Actually, he'd be in better keeping with his creationist company if he refused to back up his claims and instead offered lame excuses.
[you were clearly thinking]
I was? Is that a complement?
Wowie, an passage snipped entirely out of context so you could make a childish retort. How... typical.
And I don't recall you asking me what I was thinking? Maybe you did and I forgot...
Reading comprehension -- learn it, live it...
And yet *again*, if my impression of what you were thinking is incorrect, stop playing these childish games and just *say so*. And if my impressions *are* correct, stop dancing around like a loon, playing these coy games for no reason.
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]
You're "sure"? Absolutely "sure" or just sorta "sure"?
HEY, YOU... STUPID PERSON... The "I'm sure" in my reponse was a mocking echo of the "I'm sure" in the passage of *YOURS* to which I was responding. Flew *right* over your head, didn't it?
If saying "I'm sure" is grounds for ridicule of the sort you just flung, then FLING IT AT YOURSELF FOR SAYING IT YOURSELF, you nitwit.
WOW... not only can you read people's minds
....there you go again, playing this stupid childish game, instead of just addressing whether what I gathered from your post (via reading comprehension!) was correct or not. How old are you, twelve? Emotionally, I mean.
you can do psychoanalysis will you're in there... Does this mean I'll be getting a bill?
No, it means that when you start having delusions that make you think you can be "sure" about people sending specific kinds of emails coordinating their responses to you, it means you're well into the territory of classic paranoia.
[you *know* you've been caught at it.]
I *know*???
Yes, you do. Thus your cheap gameplaying and evasions you do, avoiding dealing head-on with your being caught at it.
[While Coyoteman did mention his degree, it was *not* done for the cheesy purposes you list in tactic #7]
It wasn't for "cheesy purposes"? oh... well then it's OK he gets a pass...
Try reading the whole sentence, dimbulb. The point is that it didn't match the purposes you outlined in your item #7, thus it fails as a valid "example" of that tactic -- you were wrong when you offered his post in "support" of your assertion that "FR scientists" behave as you described in #7. Pretending otherwise doesn't make you look any better. Quite the contrary.
BTW did you ask him why he mentioned it? did you notice any psychosis in him while you were reading his mind?
You're really a one-note kind of guy, aren't you? Same stupid, childish game as a substitute for actually discussing the merits of your claims, and my rebuttals.
[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)]
Really, now that is quite a leap in reasoning from the way I read the exchange,
Yes, you're having trouble reasoning through something simple enough for an average junior high student. Which words are you having trouble with? The fact that RWP *did* know the answer is demonstrated by the fact that he *posted* the answer. Is that "reasoning" really "quite a leap" for a brain like yours?
Or are you again just being pointlessly and childishly coy, out of some emotional problem which prevents you from having a straightforward discussion?
but hey.... You knew exactly what RWP was thinking and you knew that he would never insult someone's grammar when he made a mistake in interpretation.. He's not the insulting type is he?... Did you ask RWP what he was thinking or do you just know that's what he meant?
Hey, moron, here's a clue -- I've known RWP for many years now. I've got a much better handle on his behavior and thoughts than you do.
But if you think it's too wildly presumptuous and would require "clairvoyance" to reach a conclusion about his actual motives without asking him about it, then please explain why *YOU* felt justified in presuming his motivations when you decided that his post must be a good example of the kind of intent and motivations you listed in #7? Why weren't *you* required to query his mental state first instead of merely presuming it? Please explain, this ought to be *really* amusing.
*cough*hypocrite*cough*
[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.]
A bit off topic but I find the adjectives used in your response quite telling. For flevit it's "snide remark", "poor grammar" and for RWP it's "direct explanation and response" and "honestly misunderstood".... how noble and ethical of you...
Get a clue. Flevit's remark *was* snide -- the "you seem to have forgotten" phrase is a common bit of sarcasm. His grammar *was* poor, to the point of garbling the question. RWP *did* give a direct explanation and response (without a hint of "attitude"). He *did* honestly misunderstand the original question, which is why he first provided an answer to the question he *thought* flevit had asked. It's interesting that you would consider my description of reality "telling".
It's also "telling" that you "forgot" to mention a derogatory characterization I made of one of RWP's posts, when I described it as a "swipe". You'll probably try to childishly lawyer that away by saying it wasn't an "adjective", but the point is that I *did* make a derogatory description of one of RWP's actions, and you're dishonest to leave it out when weighing my "fairness" of my descriptions.
Shall I go on to the next batch?.... Nah...
Thanks, I wasn't in the mood for much more coy childishness.
But I would like to address one other issue.
[Now do you have anything to actually rebut what I've written and are you going to provide it, or are you going to continue to issue gradeschool-level taunts that fail to address any of my points?]
Would you call this:
[Face it like an adult, if you're able. What kind of example are you setting for your college-age children?]
Is this a grown-up taunt because you said it or a gradeschool-level taunt that you were hoping no one would notice?
Neither. It's a direct challenge to you to start discussing on an adult level for a change. And it's an honest question, which I invited you to ponder in the hopes that it would prod you into realizing that your behavior here has not been the kind that most parents of adult children would be proud to have their children witness. Maybe your children expect less of you, I couldn't say. I still expect an answer to the question.
If I want to refer to my family that's my business, but I will thank you in advance for leaving references to them out of any future homilies you perform to my detriment..
Hit a nerve, did I? Then perhaps you should actually answer the question, it may be more instructive to you than to us.
I'll stop wondering what your children would think of your behavior as soon as you start acting in a way fit for a man of your age, with your responsibilities to act as a role model.
And finally, please do not issue me any future challenges until you answer the one I posted to you yesterday.
What, *this* childish one?
And now, my challenge to you.... Unless you can cite a single post where I have espoused support for a single creationist based argument I will expect an apology from you for (as you guys call it) lying about me and calling me a creationist.Clue for the clueless -- it's not a "lie" to form an honest conclusion about you based on how closely your behavior matches that of a specific group. So no, you're not owed any "apology" for "lying about you", because no lies have been told. If I was *mistaken*, on the other hand, you are invited to stop playing your favorite "I'm so coy" game -- rather than send me off to yon post archive to wade through your past pearls of wisdom, you should do what an *adult* would do and merely state whether my conclusion about you sounding very much like a creationist is correct or not. It's not hard, really. Try it. You'll find it saves *everyone* time when you stop playing games and start behaving like an adult for a change.It's gonna take me a while to document these but I bet I post my results long before you do either.
If you're still doing research, I understand.
If you're still playing coy, I *don't* understand. Why not just be an adult for a change, instead of continuing to play your childish taunt/evade/taunt/evade games?
Hey, here's my research, bucko -- I'm *asking* you. Do you consider yourself a creationist or not? And if not, how *would* you describe your position on origins? Let's just clear this up right now in about thirty seconds (if you can stop the gameplaying and give a straight answer).
To save you a bit of time, I think going back past May or so will be futile... I'll be waiting...
To save even more than "a bit of time", why don't you stop jerking around? Think of how much time even you yourself would have saved if you could just directly discuss issues without doing all that tedious gameplaying and sidestepping.
Oh, and speaking of sidestepping, here are some points from my posts to you which you have yet to address. Please do so now:
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*And:
And: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."
And:#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. [...] 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.
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...And:
And:Even when a statement might be read more than one way, you always know the intent of the author.
You mean like *you* did when you made wild presumption about PatrickHenry's motives for deploying his ping list, despite having no grounds for your conclusion?
Furthermore, if drawing a conclusion about an author's intent is some sort of arrogant presumption of being a mind-reader, what are we to make of *your* performance in presuming to know the various authors' intents when you chose their posts as "examples" of specific tactics for your list, most of which involved specific scenarios of motivation? Hm? You can't have it both ways. If it's out of line for *me* to draw a conclusion about someone's intent, then it's equally out of line for *you* to do so as you have done so frequently on this thread. You don't want to be a blatant *hypocrite*, do you?
It bothers me that you spend any time at all responding to the idiocies posted by people who are obviously trolling. But since you've done so about the ping list, and the insane claim that I use the list when I've failed ...
"... 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."So, here's your response: You're correct and the mindless troll is wrong. Is anyone surprised? The ping list isn't a cry for help (but being a creationist troll certainly seems to be just that).
I prefer to use the list immediately, as soon as I've posted a thread I think will be of interest to the list members. If I haven't posted the thread myself, but learn about it early enough, then I sometimes agonize over whether it's "pingworthy" or should be ignored, and as most of the regulars are aware, I often seek other opinions about the quality of the thread before I deploy the list.
I try to ping very early in a thread, before it gets all wucked up by idiotic posters (who inevitably get their thrills by putting up star wars pics, claiming evolution is anti-Christian, and asking why there are still monkeys), because when a thread becomes loaded up with that troll trash too early, it's of no interest to rational freepers.
Contrary to the claim of the mindless troll, such garbage postings don't create intellectual problems that any one of us can't handle, or that require the summoning of help. Rather, they're like the presence of raw sewage at the early stage of the thread, which will discourage list members and rational newbies from participating. When many such remarks come in later, well after the ping (as in this thread) then I ignore them, but by then everyone's already in the thread, and some of us find the psychology of trolls to be entertaining.
Anyway, contrary to the deranged fantasy of the mindless troll, I don't use the ping list as a cry for help. I do it because I'm pretty sure after all this time what will interest the list and what won't.