Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I hope it was only due to server problems. When I came back on about an hour ago, my cookie was not recognized(it said it was stale) and I could not log on for about 10 minutes.
No, it was a real suspension. When I tried to post I got a screen that told me my posting priveleges had been revoked. And I was given a reason, but it made no sense. ("Defending the Taliban"). I suppose moderators need a justification for what they do.
I sympathize.
I had the real thing. Amazing insight into the moderator's way of doing things. Very revealing.
I guess we have very different ideas about what an ad hominem attack is. If I call someone an idiot, that's a personal attack. If I point out that someone's post is nonsense, that's an attack on the substance of what was said, not on the person, and it seems to be fair debate. Similarly, if I mention that I always find someone's posts to be worthless, that too is a fair comment on what is being said, and it is not a personal attack. (It would be different if I said the person was worthless.) Some people imagine that if you challenge their ideas you are making a personal attack, but that's just not true. We're supposed to discuss ideas here.
And I've discovered what may be the source of the reason given for my suspension: "Defending the Taliban." Back in post 1739, which hasn't been pulled, someone asked me if the Jack Chick comics were peer-reviewed, and I said ... well, I don't want to repeat it because it seems to be a sore point with one particular moderator. But it's still there for anyone who wants to check it out.
Using your own sense of what an ad hominem argument is, why don't you revisit your own post to me (which was posted at about the same time as my suspension):
The subject is a pathetic article that has drawn 1,800 posts. My theory is that this is so because the article is pathetic.Using your standards, I should have hit the abuse button and complained about an ad hominem attack. But I didn't (well, at that time I was suspended and I couldn't), but I wouldn't have anyway, because you were merely exprssing your opinion about the article. (Besides, complaining to the moderator about a post of yours would be ... well, never mind.)Begin with a supposed science magazine that bashes Creationists -- that's politics, atheist leftist politics. We don't have to look far for confirmaton -- the following from very early in the article:
...the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
This is just a series of bold and blatant lies. The evidence is missing, not massing. Failure of public imagination? Hardly. The public's got it right. The failure is with decades of evolutionist propaganda in our public schools. The biggest lie, though, is "truth beyond a reasonable doubt". Evolution would fail in any court of law in the land. It has not made its case.
The article, Patrick, is just garbage, and it will remain garbage whether it draws 1,800 posts or 180,000.
1792 posted on 6/25/02 10:06 AM Eastern by Phaedrus
Gore you are aware that all of these “legitimate” scientists all are evolutionists right?
Besides some (not ALL) of that DNA really is “junk” – errors that happened to get trapped in our DNA. Did you read my discussion with Andrew where I pointed out that perhaps 10,000 processed pseudogenes exist in the human genome?
What the scientist believes the evidence he discovered means is irrelevant. The evidence speaks for itself.
Listen to yourself Gore! I am gonna go out on a limb here and say the Chairman of the Department of Genetics at U. Penn is perhaps just a little bit more qualified to interpret the data on junk DNA than you are. You are a piece of work! (no creationist pun intended ;-) )
When Galileo was arguing that the earth went around the sun…
I find it more than a little ironic that you should use this example. The religious fundamentalists of his time bent over backwards to exclude scientific data which didn’t agree with their beliefs..…much like what modern day creationists are doing.
I never said such a thing in the context of this discussion. I wasn’t trying to refute ID here. I was simply trying to point out that certain changes can be made and the organism can often tolerate them. We hadnt gotten into ID yet.
You were speaking in absolutes before, and I found it irritating (there are few, if any, absolutes in biology). I am really not trying to give you a hard time Gore. I just want you to acknowledge that the genome (the “program” as you like to say) can handle some changes. There are many examples both in nature and in the lab which should make this abundantly clear and we can get into specifics if we can both agree on this principle. Are you with me so far?
Now I've got to stop you right there, Patrick. You are putting words into my mouth and you know that's not permitted, so why do you do it?
Using your standards, I should have hit the abuse button and complained about an ad hominem attack. But I didn't (well, at that time I was suspended and I couldn't), but I wouldn't have anyway, because you were merely exprssing your opinion about the article. (Besides, complaining to the moderator about a post of yours would be ... well, never mind.)
Now, Patrick, as you admit, your citation of my post underlines commentary directed at the article and unless you are the article, you have no basis for complaint.
But thank you for the repost of my commentary.
I have yet to hit the "Abuse" button but I suppose the day may come.
Silly moderator doesn't know defense from offense.
Sorry that got you in trouble Patrick. I took it to be an anti-Taliban remark myself.
Of course. It had nothing to do with you. The moderator was in a snit and was just looking for an excuse to suspend me.
So apparently, and you're not the first to argue in this manner, if an E-sider is getting flack from the C-side, he's guilty of ad hominem if he merely quotes the flack and does not also anticipate any justification the C-side might ultimately offer. Does it work the same way with C and E reversed?
Don't you know anything? No creationist would ever post an ad hominem attack. Only the eeevil-looo-shunists do that (because their "science" is all bogus). Which is why our fair-minded moderators do what they have to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.