Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science
This article is a follow-up to "Judge Jones is hot speaker on the lecture circuit", which concerns his commencement address at his alma mater, Dickinson College. The full text of the speech is here. Here are excerpts from it:
For starters, Jones' above statements are self-contradictory. He is essentially saying that the real purpose of the establishment clause -- which was supposed to prohibit the govennment from establishing a religion -- was to establish the founding fathers' "true religion" (i.e., their belief that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry") as the official state religion!
Also, Jones was stereotyping and misrepresenting the religious and philosophical beliefs of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were mostly not philosophers or theologians -- they were just mostly lawyers, planters, merchants, etc.. I believe that Jefferson was the only founding father who left behind much in the way of philosophical writings about religion, and he apparently gave no indication that his advocacy of the separation of church and state was even partly based on the one motivation that Judge Jones stated above. Also, it appears that the teleological argument of design was part of Jefferson's religion of Deism. As Bill Dembski said, "Who among our nation’s founding fathers believed that the essence of religion is an Enlightenment rationalism that eschews design? None of them. Even Jefferson would be on the ID side in the current debate." Also, the signers of the Constitution were not just big names like Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton, but included lesser-known men about whom much less is known (39 delegates signed the Constitution, and 16 did not sign). Presumably the signers of the Constitution had a broad range of views about religion. As for the Federalist Papers which promoted the Constitution, Federalist No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, actually opposed a bill of rights.
Jones essentially said that the religious purpose of establishing this "true religion" of the founding fathers was their main if not their sole purpose for adding the establishment clause to the Bill of Rights. But the establishment clause at least had "legitimate secular purposes which were not a sham" -- the founding fathers were obviously aware that theocracies and the doctrine of the divine right of kings were threats to liberty, and the establishment clause was also consistent with and supportive of the free exercise clause. Some of the American colonies -- Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania -- were founded by people seeking escape from religious persecution. Contrary to Jones' speech, it is doubtful that the establishment clause was solely, mainly, or even partly intended to promote abstract philosophical ideas about religion. And the founding fathers certainly did not intend the establishment clause to be used for the suppression of scientific ideas. The suppression of scientific ideas would not have met with the approval of Jefferson, who said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It was wrong of Judge Jones to insinuate that the founding fathers would have approved of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
Jones made no bones about the fact that his speech was just a self-serving effort to defend his Kitzmiller decision by wrapping himself in the mantle of the founding fathers. One wonders if Judge Jones' statements in his commencement address would have earned him a passing grade in an undergraduate history or philosophy course at his alma mater. Such is the supposedly great mind who wrote the supposedly brilliant Kitzmiller opinion.
As has been often written, our Founding Fathers were children of The Enlightenment. So influenced, they possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason. And that reason was best developed, they clearly believed, by a broad based liberal arts education that caused its recipients to engage the world by constantly questioning and persuading others.
Ironically, but perhaps fittingly for my purposes today, we see the Founders' ideals quite clearly, among many places, in the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This of course was the clause that I determined the school board had violated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. While legal scholars will continue to debate the appropriate application of that clause to particular facts in individual cases, this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
For starters, Jones' above statements are self-contradictory. He is essentially saying that the real purpose of the establishment clause -- which was supposed to prohibit the govennment from establishing a religion -- was to establish the founding fathers' "true religion" (i.e., their belief that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry") as the official state religion!
Also, Jones was stereotyping and misrepresenting the religious and philosophical beliefs of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were mostly not philosophers or theologians -- they were just mostly lawyers, planters, merchants, etc.. I believe that Jefferson was the only founding father who left behind much in the way of philosophical writings about religion, and he apparently gave no indication that his advocacy of the separation of church and state was even partly based on the one motivation that Judge Jones stated above. Also, it appears that the teleological argument of design was part of Jefferson's religion of Deism. As Bill Dembski said, "Who among our nation’s founding fathers believed that the essence of religion is an Enlightenment rationalism that eschews design? None of them. Even Jefferson would be on the ID side in the current debate." Also, the signers of the Constitution were not just big names like Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton, but included lesser-known men about whom much less is known (39 delegates signed the Constitution, and 16 did not sign). Presumably the signers of the Constitution had a broad range of views about religion. As for the Federalist Papers which promoted the Constitution, Federalist No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, actually opposed a bill of rights.
Jones essentially said that the religious purpose of establishing this "true religion" of the founding fathers was their main if not their sole purpose for adding the establishment clause to the Bill of Rights. But the establishment clause at least had "legitimate secular purposes which were not a sham" -- the founding fathers were obviously aware that theocracies and the doctrine of the divine right of kings were threats to liberty, and the establishment clause was also consistent with and supportive of the free exercise clause. Some of the American colonies -- Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania -- were founded by people seeking escape from religious persecution. Contrary to Jones' speech, it is doubtful that the establishment clause was solely, mainly, or even partly intended to promote abstract philosophical ideas about religion. And the founding fathers certainly did not intend the establishment clause to be used for the suppression of scientific ideas. The suppression of scientific ideas would not have met with the approval of Jefferson, who said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It was wrong of Judge Jones to insinuate that the founding fathers would have approved of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
Jones made no bones about the fact that his speech was just a self-serving effort to defend his Kitzmiller decision by wrapping himself in the mantle of the founding fathers. One wonders if Judge Jones' statements in his commencement address would have earned him a passing grade in an undergraduate history or philosophy course at his alma mater. Such is the supposedly great mind who wrote the supposedly brilliant Kitzmiller opinion.
Labels: Judge Jones (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/30/2006 12:35:00 AM
138 Comments:
Good Grief! This blog would be dead if it weren't for me.
O.K. I will initiate discussion of your latest misstatements. Elsewise, like your other recent posts, they will die on the vine, their brilliance unrecognized.
> (Jones') He is essentially saying that the real purpose of the establishment clause -- which was supposed to prohibit the govennment (sic)from establishing a religion -- was to establish the founding fathers' "true religion"<
That certainly is not what he said.
> (i.e., their belief that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry") as the official state religion! <
What a great leap! Look, Larry. If you don't understand something, try getting one of the other inmates to explain it to you before you try to explain it to the sane.
> The founding fathers were mostly not philosophers or theologians -- they were just mostly lawyers, planters, merchants, etc.. <
You are not a philosopher yourself. You are just a failed unemployed mechanical engineer. Does that mean that you should stay out of philosophic discussions. Perhaps it does.
> Even Jefferson would be on the ID side in the current debate." <
How do you know? Have you spoken to him? Why not post imitating him and we can find out first hand.
> Jones essentially said that the religious purpose of establishing this "true religion" of the founding fathers was their main if not their sole purpose for adding the establishment clause to the Bill of Rights. <
Sorry, he didn't. This "true religion" is something you constructed out of whole cloth.
> Some of the American colonies -- Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania -- were founded by people seeking escape from religious persecution. <
They wanted to be free from persecution for their own religions. They also wanted to be free to persecute others who did not follow their particular religions. They were not looking for religious freedom. They would have been happy to have a state religion, as long as it was their sect.
> The suppression of scientific ideas would not have met with the approval of Jefferson <
So if your friend Jefferson did not believe in the supression of scientific ideas, why are you trying to supress the teaching of Darwinism? Please don't claim that you are not. That you are only trying to include the non-scientific dogma of ID.
> Jones made no bones about the fact that his speech was just a self-serving effort to defend his Kitzmiller decision by wrapping himself in the mantle of the founding fathers. <
Jones only shows his impression of what the founding fathers meant. He may be wrong but his arguments are more persuasive than yours.
Larry,
Would you please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I have tried to make my beliefs known to you in our many evening discussions. If you continue to misrepresent our positions on these subjects, you will be kicked out of your place at the table and replaced by your brother Shemp
<< To me, there is nothing particularly special about the founding fathers -- they were just a group of men who happened to be in the right place at the right time. >> (Post on same subject, May 23.)
Or a better analogy: The Wright brothers just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Stand in Spot A and the Bill of Rights will occur to you. Stand in Spot B and invent an airplane. Stand in Spot C and an airplane will fall on you.
Yikes! I have to agree with VIW, who said:
> Langley was a Smithsonian employee and the museum never contended that his airplane flew before the Wright Flyer <
"Good God! So much for your brother's claim as to your historical knowledge."
There really was a story here but who would guess from reading your account? Have you considered a career as a historical revisionist?
See http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htm.
And here's a quote for you:
"Taxpayers are conditioned to think of "research" as what is done in universities by people with government grants. Actually, research is what was done by the Wright brothers with their own money."
-- Dr. Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
VoiceInWilderness said ( 5/30/2006 12:11:52 PM ) --
>>>>>Good Grief! This blog would be dead if it weren't for me.<<<<<
And you accuse me of being conceited?
>>>>O.K. I will initiate discussion of your latest misstatements. Elsewise, like your other recent posts, they will die on the vine, their brilliance unrecognized.<<<<<
Thank you for saving the day. I wonder what took you so long. You were spending most of your time just heckling me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> (Jones') He is essentially saying that the real purpose of the establishment clause -- which was supposed to prohibit the government from establishing a religion -- was to establish the founding fathers' "true religion"<
That certainly is not what he said.
> (i.e., their belief that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry") as the official state religion! <
What a great leap! Look, Larry. If you don't understand something, try getting one of the other inmates to explain it to you before you try to explain it to the sane.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That is not what he literally said -- of course Jones would not literally say something like that. I said that is what he essentially said.
Let's go back and look at what Jones actually said --
The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders , who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. (emphasis added)
So, Jones defined what he considered to be the "true religion" of the Founders, and then he said that "this core set of beliefs" -- i.e., this "true religion" -- led the Founders to create the establishment clause. It is Jones -- not me -- who initially called this set of beliefs a "true religion." A commenter on Uncommondescent.com astutely observed, "Really, even outside of this case in particular, a judge has no business declaring what counts as “true religion”, and one who does ought to recuse himself from any case where his biases might color his decision."
<<<<<> The founding fathers were mostly not philosophers or theologians -- they were just mostly lawyers, planters, merchants, etc.. <
You are not a philosopher yourself. <<<<<
A classic ad hominem attack. The issue here is the founding fathers' philosophies -- not my philosophy. I am asserting that most of the delegates at the Constitutional convention had probably never given Jones' ideas much thought because they were too busy with their occupations, and furthermore the establishment clause was only a very small part of the many difficult issues that these men had to deal with at the convention. And most of these men presumably left little or no record of their specific religious beliefs.
<<<<<> "Even Jefferson would be on the ID side in the current debate." <
How do you know? Have you spoken to him?<<<<<
Did Judge Jones speak to him? Who is Judge Jones to presume that Jefferson would have approved of his Kitzmiller decision?
Anyway, the above quote is of Dembski, not me. However, I tend to agree with the quote. Historians generally agree that Jefferson was a deist, and one of the tenets of Deism is the teleological argument of design. You can disagree with that if you want, but I think that the burden of proof lies with those who think that Jefferson would have approved the Kitzmiller decision for whatever reason.
>>>>> Jones essentially said that the religious purpose of establishing this "true religion" of the founding fathers was their main if not their sole purpose for adding the establishment clause to the Bill of Rights. <
Sorry, he didn't. This "true religion" is something you constructed out of whole cloth.<<<<<
No I did not. As I pointed out, Judge Jones was the one who introduced the term "true religion" to this discussion. And he completely ignored other motives that the Founders must have had for adding the establishment clause: opposing theocracies, opposing the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and supporting the free exercise of religion.
>>>>> Some of the American colonies -- Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania -- were founded by people seeking escape from religious persecution. <
They wanted to be free from persecution for their own religions. They also wanted to be free to persecute others who did not follow their particular religions. <<<<<
OK, what you say is true about the Puritans of Massachusetts -- in fact, I was hesitant to include them in this list without qualification. They banished Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. But Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, was a proponent of separation of church and state and was presumably tolerant. I presume that the Quakers of Pennsylvania were also tolerant -- the Quakers generally have no clergy or official doctrine.
>>>>> The suppression of scientific ideas would not have met with the approval of Jefferson <
So if your friend Jefferson did not believe in the supression of scientific ideas, why are you trying to supress the teaching of Darwinism? Please don't claim that you are not.<<<<<<
Sorry that I cannot please you, because the fact is that I am not trying to suppress the teaching of Darwinism. In fact, Darwinism is the only concept concerning the origin of species that is actually taught in Dover, Cobb County, and Tangipahoa parish.
>>>> Jones made no bones about the fact that his speech was just a self-serving effort to defend his Kitzmiller decision by wrapping himself in the mantle of the founding fathers. <
Jones only shows his impression of what the founding fathers meant.<<<<
And I only show my impression that Jones' impression is a wrong impression.
Of course, everyone knew why Judge Jones had been invited to be the commencement speaker -- he even admitted it: "I know that my invitation to speak to you today is largely the result of my work in that trial involving the concept of intelligent design." But he did not have to talk about the Kitzmiller case -- he could have talked about something less controversial, like the importance of keeping politics out of the courts, which he discussed in some of his other speeches. His audience was captive -- it had come there primarily to attend a graduation ceremony and not to hear a judge's views on what a "true religion" is, and I feel that he imposed upon the audience by discussing those views. It is almost like forcing the audience at a graduation ceremony to sit through prayers -- some people have sued over that.
>>>>>He may be wrong but his arguments are more persuasive than yours. <<<<<
I would rather be right than be persuasive.
> And you accuse me of being conceited? <
I am not conceited. That is your fallacy. I am arrogant.
> Thank you for saving the day. I wonder what took you so long. <
You are welcome.
> I said that is what he essentially said. <
You said what you believe he essentially said. Few would agree with your interpretation.
>A classic ad hominem attack. <
You are no longer in a position to protest this as you lead your blog in ad hominem attacks.
> Anyway, the above quote is of Dembski, not me. <
I was wrong. It is Dembski who is the Dumbski this time.
> Historians generally agree that Jefferson was a deist, <
You are right. There is your acorn.
> OK, what you say is true about the Puritans of Massachusetts <
An acorn for me? But I have a lot of acorns.
> And I only show my impression that Jones' impression is a wrong impression.<
I knew that. It was my impression that your impression was wrong.
> (Jones) "I know that my invitation to speak to you today is largely the result of my work in that trial involving the concept of intelligent design." <
Many people are invited to the Nobel Awards ceremony largely as the result of their superior scientific or other work. Of course there is also a great deal of politics in it.
> I feel that he imposed upon the audience by discussing those views. <
I feel that anyone who speaks about anything for more than five minutes in a commencement ceremony has probably overstayed his welcome.
> I would rather be right than be persuasive. <
Both would be nice but you have yet to be either.
Keep it up. This reply is a definite improvement over your usual blather.
>>>>>>> Langley was a Smithsonian employee and the museum never contended that his airplane flew before the Wright Flyer <
"Good God! So much for your brother's claim as to your historical knowledge."
There really was a story here but who would guess from reading your account? Have you considered a career as a historical revisionist?
See http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htm.<<<<<<<
For starters, that was not my brother who said that.
For another, my complete statement (you quoted only part of it) is EXACTLY correct. Here is my complete statement --
Langley was a Smithsonian employee and the museum never contended that his airplane flew before the Wright Flyer did (the Langley airplane was modified and flew in 1914).
Langley's airplane did not fly before the Wright flyer flew -- that is exactly what your article said. I never said that Langley did not make the first flyable airplane (arguably he did not, because the airplane had to be extensively modified before it flew).
And as I noted, the Langley airplane was modified and flew in 1914 -- exactly as the article stated.
I simply cannot say anything -- no matter how true -- without someone finding fault with it. Sad.
Oliver Winchester was nothing but a shirt peddler who knew how to market the ideas of others. Horace Smith and Dan Wesson made the Volcanic repeating rifle in the 1850s. Winchester bought out the company. He hired Ben Henry to make an improved model which was marketed in 1860. The 1866 model was the first go have a really big draw. Ben's 1873 model became known as "The gun that won the west."
But it was was my work that produced every lever-action rifle, and shotgun made by Winchester from 1886 onward. My 1894 model is still in production by Winchester and there are many companies making updated versions of my 1886, 1892, and 1895 models. If that arrogant windbag Ollie hadn't pissed me off, he could have also marked things that I instead sold to Fabrique National of Belgium, Colt, and Remington.
Although I left earth in 1829, nearly every machine gun used by the U.S. in WWII was my design and my 1911 pistol, originally licensed to Colt, is now in production by nearly 100 different companies including Smith & Wesson.
P.S.
Thomas Jefferson told me to say "Hi". It seems that all is forgiven.
> For starters, that was not my brother who said that. <
You seem to be confused here. Nobody claimed that your brother said anything about aircraft. What he (your real brother, not the one you created) said was that you knew a lot about history. That is obviously wrong.
> For another, my complete statement (you quoted only part of it) is EXACTLY correct. Here is my complete statement --
Langley was a Smithsonian employee and the museum never contended that his airplane flew before the Wright Flyer did (the Langley airplane was modified and flew in 1914). <
You are wrong. The Smithsonian museum did once claim that Langley flew before the Wright Flyer. There is no use giving further references to this fact. You will only misread them too.
> I simply cannot say anything -- no matter how true -- without someone finding fault with it. Sad. <
But this particular statement wasn't true. Give your acorn back.
VoiceInWilderness said ( 5/30/2006 08:32:35 PM ) --
>>>>What he (your real brother, not the one you created) said ....<<<<
For the umpteenth time, that is not my real brother.
>>>>>You are wrong. The Smithsonian museum did once claim that Langley flew before the Wright Flyer. There is no use giving further references to this fact. You will only misread them too.<<<<<
Saying that I "will only misread them too" is just a cop-out.
Langley's efforts were a well-documented government-funded project. There was never any dispute that the Wright airplanes actually flew before the Langley airplane, which did not fly until 1914 in modified form. The only dispute was over the capability of flying, because the Langley airplane was extensively modified before it flew.
Here is what the contract with the Smithsonian regarding display of the Wright Flyer actually says --
"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."
I think that what is wrong about the above contract is that the Smithsonian not only conceded in regard to the Langley aircraft's claims of being first but also conceded in regard to all other claims of being first in either making or designing an aircraft capable of manned controlled powered flight. This contract actually requires the Smithsonian to rewrite history if necessary to sustain the Wrights' claims. Actually, if anything diminishes the Wrights' achievement, it is the fact that by the early 1900's the development of the airplane had become inevitable -- the Europeans, working independently, developed their own airplanes. In fact, by the second decade of the 20th century, European airplanes far surpassed American airplanes in performance. However, in the 1920's, the USA caught up again.
> For the umpteenth time, that is not my real brother. <
For the umpteenth time, that is, and has been proven to be, your real brother and you are, and have been proven to be, a liar.
David Fafarman is a structural engineer, listed in the California State Board of Registration for Professional Engineer's website. The same site where your license is shown as "delinquent". You previously said that the other Fafarman listed there was your brother. This David Fafarman has a known email address, a SBC address. He is the one who is posting as your brother Dave. In contrast, your pathetic attempts to impersonate him come from your AOL address. Do you really question why nobody takes you seriously?
Why do you continue this charade? I will make you a deal. If you stop lying about this, I will stop rubbing your nose in it.
Incidentaly, I forgot to correct you on your mistaken claim that Langley was an employee of the Smithsonian. He was the Secretary of the Smithsonian. (No. That did not mean that he took dictation.)
> There was never any dispute that the Wright airplanes actually flew before the Langley airplane <
Despite the wording of the Smithsonian contract that would tend to indicate that the only controversy was whether the Langley aircraft was "capable of flight" they, for many years, had claimed that Langley had actually flown first.
> This contract actually requires the Smithsonian to rewrite history if necessary to sustain the Wrights' claims. <
Duh! That is my original point.
You may not know that in 1969 Paul Garber, curator of Smithsonian's National Aeronautical and Space Museum, denied that any such agreement existed, adding that he "could never agree to such a thing.
The story changed after an annual meeting of international museum directors at Wright-Patterson AFB in June 29, 1975 where attendees overheard a loud argument between Louis Casey, then a NASM curator, and Harold S. Miller, an executor of the Wright estate. During the argument, Miller used the word "contract" three times. Casey had mentioned that the wording of the label on the Wright Flyer was to undergo a change. Miller heatedly insisted it could not be changed "by contract." Miller won.
This was pursued by Major William J. O'Dwyer, USAF ret., a longtime leader of efforts to document Gustave Whitehead's 1901 flight. (There were more witnesses to Whitehead's flight than that of the Wright Brothers and they were equally credible.)
Letters and visits between O'Dwyer and Senator Lowell Weicker, Jr., of Connecticut, plus senatorial clout and the Freedom of Information Act, were required to extract a copy of "non-existant" contract from the Smithsonian. The agreement was dated November 23, 1948. One of two signers for the Wright estate was Harold S. Miller and, "for the United States of America," A. Wetmore, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
Commenting on the contract, O'Dwyer observed: "The Smithsonian has no authority to represent the people of the United States in any contract if it compromises history. They overstep and abuse their power, especially when they engage in political engineering of this sort."
The Smithsonian's complicity in this "history by contract" is more than passive. They have gone out of their way to actively attack any author who writes anything about flights before the Wright Brothers.
One could argue that the Wrights actually did more to retard the development of aircraft than advance it. After their famous flight, they did little publicly for a number of years while expending their energies in suing everyone who ever made an attempt to get into the air. They tried to claim credit for and patent many things with which they clearly had no connection. This extended so far as their trying to patent things already patented decades before by Otto Lilienthal!
In outliving his brother, Orville wright was also able to rewrite history to the extent that he now appears to be an equal partner, rather than a junior assistant to his brother Wilbur. This is sort of like the case with Wyatt and Virgil Earp (new thread?)
VoiceInWilderness said ( 5/30/2006 07:36:11 PM ) --
<<<<<<> And you accuse me of being conceited? <
I am not conceited. That is your fallacy. I am arrogant.<<<<<
No different in my book.
<<<<<<> I said that is what he essentially said. <
You said what you believe he essentially said. Few would agree with your interpretation.<<<<<
How do you know, VIW?
IMO, Jones speech had many faults. He essentially said that the main if not the sole purpose of the establishment clause was, ironically, to establish the founding fathers' "true religion." Regardless of how you try to twist around what he said, that is what he essentially said. He stereotyped the religious views of the signers of the Constitution. He ignored the fact that Deism, the religion of some of the most prominent of the founding fathers, is partly based on the teleological argument of design. He ignored the other good reasons that the founding fathers must have had for including the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights: to oppose theocracies, oppose the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and to promote the free exercise clause. He assumed -- without any supporting evidence -- that the founding fathers would have supported his Kitzmiller decision, and that the founding fathers would have here regarded the governmental endorsement of religion issue as outweighing the principle of the free exchange of ideas.
Was this alleged "true religion" of the founding fathers ever debated in the briefs or on the courtroom floor in the Kitzmiller case? How could something that was not debated in the case have been a major factor in the decision? Should this alleged "true religion" have been a major factor in the decision? Has this notion of a "true religion" ever been a factor in any other establishment clause case? Should "original intent" be controlling ? Why should we be controlled by the thoughts of the founding fathers, who were far from perfect anyway? What is the reason for all this worship of the founding fathers?
<<<<<<<> (Jones) "I know that my invitation to speak to you today is largely the result of my work in that trial involving the concept of intelligent design." <
Many people are invited to the Nobel Awards ceremony largely as the result of their superior scientific or other work. Of course there is also a great deal of politics in it.<<<<<<
I am really surprised that a judge would be invited to be a commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree just because he decided a controversial case. Would a judge have been similarly honored on the basis of a decision in another controversial area, say, abortion or gay rights ? I know that politicians are frequently commencement speakers, but if we don't agree with a politician, at least we can do something about it by voting against that politician. But we are stuck with a federal judge.
It is apparent that Jones' selection as one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people was a major factor in his selection as commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient. But being on the cover of Time magazine is not necessarily a great honor -- Hitler, Stalin, and Ayatollah Khomeini have all been selected as Time Person of the Year.
For those who wish to protest Jones' commencement address and honorary degree, major contacts for Dickinson College are as follows:
William Durden, President
durden@dickinson.edu
R. Russell Shunk, Exec. Vice-Pres., College/Community Dev.
shunk@dickinson.edu
Office of College Relations
colrel@dickinson.edu
Karen Faryniak, Associate Vice-Pres., College Relations
faryniak@dickinson.edu
Heidi Hormel, Assistant Director of Media Relations
media@dickinson.edu
Donald A. Hasseltine, Vice-Pres. for Development
hasseltd@dickinson.edu
Thanks for bringing that up, Voice. It's something I'd never heard, and just spent about an hour reading all about it. Very interesting story about the Wright brothers et al.
Larry, while your front page looks very clean, very finished, the comments sections all keep the generic blogger colors and style. Are there some settings you might fiddle with to adjust them to match your front page? I think it would help your site look more finished, and would be a nice impovement. I'm not being snarky, just tryin' to help, and I really do like the look of your front page.
Larry said:
==================================
(Jones) ignored the fact that Deism, the religion of some of the most prominent of the founding fathers, is partly based on the teleological argument of design. He ignored the other good reasons that the founding fathers must have had for including the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights: to oppose theocracies, oppose the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and to promote the free exercise clause. He assumed -- without any supporting evidence -- that the founding fathers would have supported his Kitzmiller decision, and that the founding fathers would have here regarded the governmental endorsement of religion issue as outweighing the principle of the free exchange of ideas.
Was this alleged "true religion" of the founding fathers ever debated in the briefs or on the courtroom floor in the Kitzmiller case?
==================================
(Of course it was -- implicitly at least.)
Intelligent people realized over 150 years ago, after reading the Origin of Species, that it must be true. But of course there were some problems with it. One was that no one could imagine how the Earth could be old enough for it to happen. I unfortunately led people on a wild goose chase in trying to resolve this (and even more fatuously claimed that everything in physics was already known, save for some fiddling with the last decimal place).
Sorry about that.
See:
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/fusion/sun_1.html
If Jefferson were around today, I think he'd endorse Kitzmiller.
-- William Thompson (Lord Kelvin)
I even said:
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/stoopid.lis
And some other bon mots.
Oh, the embarrassment!
Fortunately I did some good work that salvaged at least some of my reputation.
^over 150^almost 150^
(can barely count)
VoiceInWilderness said ( 5/31/2006 08:33:53 AM ) --
>>>> > For the umpteenth time, that is not my real brother. <
I will make you a deal. If you stop lying about this, I will stop rubbing your nose in it.<<<<
This issue is a distraction, and so I will stop talking about it. But that does not mean that I have conceded anything.
>>>>Incidentaly, I forgot to correct you on your mistaken claim that Langley was an employee of the Smithsonian. He was the Secretary of the Smithsonian. <<<<
Picky, picky. OK, he was a government employee who was Secretary of the Smithsonian.
>>>>Despite the wording of the Smithsonian contract that would tend to indicate that the only controversy was whether the Langley aircraft was "capable of flight" they, for many years, had claimed that Langley had actually flown first. <<<<<
I am going to have to invoke the maxim of this blog, "I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me," here. You are going to have to show me that the Smithsonian ever claimed that Langley's plane actually flew first. Also, there was nothing in the contract that mentioned the Langley airplane -- the contract applied to all claims to have been first to build or design a heavier-than-air craft capable of manned controlled powered flight.
>>>>Commenting on the contract, O'Dwyer observed: "The Smithsonian has no authority to represent the people of the United States in any contract if it compromises history. They overstep and abuse their power, especially when they engage in political engineering of this sort." <<<<<
I agree.
>>>>>The Smithsonian's complicity in this "history by contract" is more than passive. They have gone out of their way to actively attack any author who writes anything about flights before the Wright Brothers.<<<<<
The contract did not require the Smithsonian to do that and I have no idea why they would have done that.
>>>>>One could argue that the Wrights actually did more to retard the development of aircraft than advance it.<<<<<
As I said, the Europeans independently developed the airplane and European airplanes soon surpassed the performance of American airplanes. The Wright control method of wing-warping was superseded by ailerons. The Langley airplane's Manly engine -- a five-cylinder radial -- was vastly superior to the engine of the Wright Flyer. As I remember, the Manly engine's power-to-weight ratio -- comparable to that of modern lightplane engines -- was not equaled by other aircraft engines for 14 years. I think that the Wrights' contributions to aviation soon became irrelevant. I think that the Wrights' only real claim to fame was that they were the first to offer airplanes for sale.
The Wrights did enjoy some early fame and recognition for their achievements. For example, in 1908 the Wrights, at a flight demonstration in France, wowed the crowd with their ability to take off quickly and make banked turns. A pioneer European aviator who observed the demonstration said, "compared to the Wrights, we are as children." ( I thought you'd like that, Colin -- you like to take swipes at children ).
>>>>> After their famous flight, they did little publicly for a number of years while expending their energies in suing everyone who ever made an attempt to get into the air. <<<<<
That could be one reason why the Europeans surpassed the Americans in aviation in the second decade of the 20th century.
>>>>>They tried to claim credit for and patent many things with which they clearly had no connection. This extended so far as their trying to patent things already patented decades before by Otto Lilienthal!<<<<<
Did Lilienthal ever patent anything? I thought that he was just a pioneer hangglider builder and pilot. He controlled his flights by the primitive means of shifting his weight. I think that his only contributions to aviation were to demonstrate the feasibility of manned flight and inspire others.
Anyway, I have had a strong interest in aviation history. I contributed dozens of books to the library of the defunct Museum of Flying in Santa Monica, Calif.. A family friend, Jack Cherne, headed a volunteer project to build a working replica of the original Wright Flyer ( aka Wright Flyer I and Kitty Hawk). Theoretically, Wright Flyer I was so unstable as to be nearly impossible to fly -- but we know that it flew. Similarly, the bumblebee is theoretically incapable of flight, but we know that it flies.
That's an old piece of folklore, Larry.
http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html
----The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.
It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke. Later still it became a "fun" experiment to develop complex mathematical theories both to explain how insects fly, or why they can't -- scientific intellectual sophism.
It has remained popular to this day, among the kinds of people who believe there were never dinosaurs because the devil made fossils to fool us, because the fact is that the world is only 6,000 years old & God made it in seven days. Alleged "loopholes" in physics are lit upon as evidence that the supernatural, & not physics, informs the nature of the universe. Whether that supernatural agent is God, astrology, the Good Fairies, or homeopathy, physics must first be shown to be the primary delusion so that wild impossibilities can be embraced as greater truth.
The simple way to debunk the moronic assertion is this: The aerodynamic equations that explain airplane flight are based on steady-wing & not moble-wing function. That a steady-wing airplane the size & shape of a bee will not fly has no baring whatsoever or the vastly more complicated moble-wing functions of insects.
Further insight:
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/10/9
http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item223.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item223.htm
Hope that squares things for ya.
Whoops. Sorry about posting that last link twice. My bad.
Larry said:
=================================
... the Europeans independently developed the airplane and European airplanes soon surpassed the performance of American airplanes. The Wright control method of wing-warping was superseded by ailerons. The Langley airplane's Manly engine -- a five-cylinder radial -- was vastly superior to the engine of the Wright Flyer. As I remember, the Manly engine's power-to-weight ratio -- comparable to that of modern lightplane engines -- was not equaled by other aircraft engines for 14 years. I think that the Wrights' contributions to aviation soon became irrelevant. I think that the Wrights' only real claim to fame was that they were the first to offer airplanes for sale.
The Wrights did enjoy some early fame and recognition for their achievements. For example, in 1908 the Wrights, at a flight demonstration in France, wowed the crowd with their ability to take off quickly and make banked turns. A pioneer European aviator who observed the demonstration said, "compared to the Wrights, we are as children." ...
=================================
Hmm. Larry contradicts both himself and ViW here. (And, it sounds like correctly, I might add, though not being familiar with that part of the story.) I think the Wrights' place in history is secure.
But also to be noted here (in connection with evolution) is just how rapidly things can move when there is cross-cooptation. (That's really the sense in which aviation could be said to be "inevitable" at that time -- the pieces and the people were in place.) This kind of thing happens in natural systems also, though usually less efficiently. For instance, ages ago our ancestors adopted as symbionts the ancestors of our white blood cells. (Saved having to invent from scratch.)
>>>>Despite the wording of the Smithsonian contract that would tend to indicate that the only controversy was whether the Langley aircraft was "capable of flight" they, for many years, had claimed that Langley had actually flown first. <<<<<
<< I am going to have to invoke the maxim of this blog, "I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me," here. You are going to have to show me that the Smithsonian ever claimed that Langley's plane actually flew first. >>
While I don't know for certain whether the Smithsonian claimed that "Langley had actually flown first", my "Law of Parsimony" -- probably better called "Suggestion of Parsimony" but "Law" sounds better ;-) -- strongly supports that they did or at least tried to imply it. It just fits the rest of the story too well.
Lou_FCD said ( 5/31/2006 09:59:10 AM ) --
>>>>Larry, while your front page looks very clean, very finished, the comments sections all keep the generic blogger colors and style. Are there some settings you might fiddle with to adjust them to match your front page? I think it would help your site look more finished, and would be a nice impovement. I'm not being snarky, just tryin' to help, and I really do like the look of your front page. <<<<<
Thanks for the compliments, Lou, but I did not design the front page -- also called "home" or "main" page -- of this blog. Bloggers are given a choice of about a dozen different home page formats when creating the blog. I liked the format I chose for the same reason that you do -- it is clean and simple. Examples of other formats available on this blog service may be seen by clicking on "Darwinian Fundamentalism" and "New Prescribed Evolution" in the link list in the left sidebar. Supposedly bloggers can even change to another format on an established blog. This blog service -- blogger.com -- is identified by the Blogger logo at the left end of the upper border of the home page, next to the "search" entry window.
There are two ways of viewing the comments following each original post (on this blog service, the original posts are officially simply called "posts," and the following comments are called "comments" -- I prefer to call the original posts "articles" to prevent confusion with the comments). One way is to click on the title of the original post in the list of "Recent posts" at the top of the left sidebar on the home page. This will bring up the original post followed by the comments, all appearing in the same format as the home page. The other way to view the comments is on the white comment-entry page, which may be brought up by either (1) clicking on the comment count at the bottom of each original post on the home page or (2) clicking on the "post a comment" option at the bottom of the display pages for each original post and the following comments ( if any). To view the most recent comments, it is best to view the white comment-entry page, because the comments often do not appear on the other page for some time, sometimes several hours (I don't know why).
Also, older posts not listed in the "Recent Posts" column in the left sidebar in the home page can be found in the following ways: (1) scrolling down through the original posts on the home page; (2) clicking on the last post in the list of "Recent Posts" in the left sidebar -- this will bring up a list of the next most recent posts, (3) clicking on the archives list, and (4) entering part of the post's title in the "search" window in the top border of the blog. I found that this "search" option is not too effective -- it doesn't work on searching for words in the texts of the comments.
Also, a very nice feature that is not available on this blog service is a list of the most recent comments posted anywhere on the blog. For examples of this feature, see Panda's Thumb and Dispatches from the Culture Wars in the link list in the left sidebar of the homepage (you have to be on the homepage to see this list). If anyone knows of reliable coding for this feature, please tell me.
This blog service has a few faults, but it is free, so I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
"defunct Museum of Flying in Santa Monica, Calif."
A damned shame, that.
Thanks for that, Larry. I was familiar with blogs in general, just a little disappointed with the sticks-out-like-a-sore-thumbedness of the white page. I hadn't thought about the sidebar, actually. You'd think it would do the same thing. Ya live ya learn.
I'd seen your comment on an earlier thread about the newest comments thing. That should probably be at the top of your to-do list. It really is a handy-dandy little thingy.
I'm familiar with the Thumb. You've probably seen me around. In fact, I think you've probably seen me object rather vehemently to your multiple-personality thing over there.
It's like this Larry. I disagree with damn near every single thing that comes from your keyboard. I think you're stubborn, and mostly off your rocker. But I don't think of you in the same vein as the clowns over at UD or AIG.
Here's the difference, as I see it, and my opinion is worth exactly as much as you just paid for it - nada.
Those guys over there are con men. They know what they're spouting is gibberish and deliberately manipulate things because they're liars.
I'm happy to take pot shots at them, because they're dishonest cheats, shilling for money and power.
On the other hand, I think you're wrong, and probably more than a little delusional. BUT I think you are sincerely nuts (no offense).
Strangely enough, I kind of worry about your blood pressure when you let the Thumb guys rile you up. Lighten up a little, you'll live longer.
All that being said, I think you've backed yourself into a corner and might deep down inside wonder if you should at least consider the possibility that some of your positions are a little off the mark, but you can't quite get over the pride hump and just say "Okee dokee, I might have fucked up on that one. My bad."
Somehow, I think there still might be hope for you yet. (and I might be the only one in the world to think so, but there ya go)
Anyways, I thought you should know that although I won't be taking cheap shots at you, I certainly don't condone or agree with basically anything I've ever seen you type. So ya' know.
Think about it, and take it in the spirit in which is was intended.
Four comments are answered here.
william of ockham said ( 5/31/2006 01:45:12 PM ) --
>>>>>While I don't know for certain whether the Smithsonian claimed that "Langley had actually flown first", my "Law of Parsimony" -- probably better called "Suggestion of Parsimony" but "Law" sounds better ;-) -- strongly supports that they did or at least tried to imply it. It just fits the rest of the story too well. <<<<<
To me, it is apparent that the dispute over the Langley airplane concerned the capability of flight and not actual flight, because the Langley airplane flew in modified form in 1914. I think that it was OK of the Smithsonian to relinquish its own claims in regard to the Langley airplane, but I think that the Smithsonian had no right to deny others' claims to have flown, built, or designed a functional airplane before the Wrights.
don douglas said ( 5/31/2006 02:06:25 PM ) --
>>>>>"defunct Museum of Flying in Santa Monica, Calif."
A damned shame, that. <<<<<
What is a bigger shame is that it was the only major aviation museum in the Los Angeles metro area, a place with a prouder aviation heritage that any place on earth. Many of the planes of the golden age of aviation were built here in the 1920's and 1930's by Douglas, Lockheed, Northrop, etc.. In the 1930's through the 1950's, most of the world's airliners were built here by Douglas and Lockheed. All we have left is just a little hole-in-the-wall museum in Hawthorne. Very, very sad.
Lou_FCD said ( 5/31/2006 02:24:57 PM ) --
>>>>-I'm familiar with the Thumb. You've probably seen me around. In fact, I think you've probably seen me object rather vehemently to your multiple-personality thing over there.<<<<<
I have already lavishly explained why I used multiple names on Panda's Thumb -- I was blocked from posting there because I happened to be using an AOL proxy whose IP address was banned by PT. PT is to blame -- not me.
Lou_FCD continues --
>>>> I disagree with damn near every single thing that comes from your keyboard. <<<<
A lot of people say that they disagree with me, but don't say why. If they said why, maybe I could answer them. If I disagree with someone, I don't say anything unless I also say why. I would feel very foolish just telling people that I disagree with them without saying why.
Lou_FCD said ( 5/31/2006 12:33:03 PM ) --
>>>>>That's an old piece of folklore, Larry.
----The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer.<<<<<
Well, these "pieces of folklore" and "urban myths" really stick around a long time, don't they? Another example is Darwinism. LOL (just trying to get back on-topic a little)
I had no idea that this myth about bee flight was based on the assumption of a static wing -- that's absolutely absurd.
Yeah, it's funny how these things get started...
As for explaining why I disagree with you, I wasn't looking to debate, just wanted to be honest. I do wish you well here, though.
Perhaps sometime we'll get around to more meaty subjects, but for now I'd rather just hang out and find less antagonistic subjects to comment about, if that's ok with you. Like the bee thing, and the Wright brothers thing, and the latest comments thing for instance.
> Picky, picky. OK, he was a government employee who was Secretary of the Smithsonian. <
He was a professor of astronomy at the Western University of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh at the time. Is that what you call a government employee? I guess by a stretch he was.
> Also, there was nothing in the contract that mentioned the Langley airplane <
Nor did it address the price of fish. That doesn't really seem to be relevant.
> As I remember, the Manly engine's power-to-weight ratio -- comparable to that of modern lightplane engines -- was not equaled by other aircraft engines for 14 years. <
I think that an engine tested by Edison in 1880 topped them all. He went to a new form of internal combustion engine which used a guncotton tape automatically fed into the chamber and ignited by an electric spark. After some promise, the engine blew up taking with it a part of Edison’s laboratory. This seemed to have cooled Edison's interest in further development of this promising technology.
> I think that the Wrights' only real claim to fame was that they were the first to offer airplanes for sale. <
Right, another acorn!
> Did Lilienthal ever patent anything? <
He held several patents but I don't remember the details. I believe that one of them might have been a concave wing structure.
One of the several claimants for flights before the Wright Brothers was Lyman Gilmore, a man whose appearance fits the way I picture you. Gilmore vowed never to cut his hair or beard and wore a trench coat containing his papers even in the middle of summer. On March 15, 1907 Gilmore opened the first commercial airfield, Gilmore Airfield.
Potential evidence of his early flights was lost in a hanger fire in 1935. Any remaining proof he beat the Wright Brothers was lost when he was forcefully deprived of his trench coat for a delousing and it was subsequently burned along with all the papers it carried.
"defunct Museum of Flying in Santa Monica, Calif."
The shame is that instead of donating the cash that they so badly needed, people were donating books and trash.
As for the different meanings of conceit and arrogance, Conceit is an especially unduly high opinion of one's own abilities or worth. This describes you. Arrogance is overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors. I am guilty of arrogance but it may be quite justifiable in this case.
The real Dave just told me that you had your mother call and ask him to stop posting on your blog. Since you are denying that it really is Dave, what is the point?
If it weren't for Dave and VIW, you wouldn't have anything worth reading on this blog!
> To me, it is apparent that the dispute over the Langley airplane concerned the capability of flight and not actual flight, because the Langley airplane flew in modified form in 1914. <
A copy of the Wright airplane flew in modified form in 2003 (but not far.) That is equally irrelevant.
> What is a bigger shame is that it was the only major aviation museum in the Los Angeles metro area,<
Don't forget the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne. They are struggling to stay open despite a huge rent increase by a developer who wants them out.
> most of the world's airliners were built here by Douglas and Lockheed. <
As you know, I am currently flying a Douglas plane. A DC-3.
> All we have left is just a little hole-in-the-wall museum in Hawthorne. <
That museum may be small but they have some impressive historic material.
> I was blocked from posting there because I happened to be using an AOL proxy whose IP address was banned by PT. <
If that was all, what was to be gained by posting from the same IP address using other names? Perhaps the reason that you were banned from PT is the quite reasonable one that they give.
> A lot of people say that they disagree with me, but don't say why. <
A lot of people do say why but you pretend not to have seen the comments.
> I would feel very foolish just telling people that I disagree with them without saying why. <
Then you must feel foolish. Good! Under the circumstances that is a quite reasonable way for you to feel.
> At which time? Now you really are being picky. This must have been earlier. <
I can't pin it down any more. He became a became a professor of astronomy at the Western University of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh in 1867. In 1886, while still there, Langley received the Henry Draper Medal from the National Academy of Sciences for his contributions to solar physics. He became the third Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution in 1887 which might indicate that he had moved from Pittsburgh but he then published in 1890 his infrared observations at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh, a facility of the Western University of Pittsburgh.
I can find no evidence of his ever being a government employee unless, by a stretch of the imagination, you consider his earlier time as the chairman of the math department at the U.S. Naval Academy.
> If someone can sign contracts on behalf of the USA, then I'd say he is a government employee: <
I have negotiated contracts on behalf of several county agencies as an independant contractor and have even signed them as an authorized representative. I was not an employee of any county at the time.
It is apparent that a lot of the commenters here prefer to discuss off-topic trivia rather than the topic of this thread. I started this whole thing by making the innocent statement that Langley was an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. Then nitpicking commenters complained that he wasn't really an employee -- he was the "secretary." Then when I answered that he was a government employee who happened to be the secretary of the Smithsonian, then someone starting asking if the Smithsonian is really an entity of the US government. Question -- does all this really matter? And anyone can find the governmental status of the Smithsonian by doing an Internet search.
Bill Carter -- probably a Knucklehead Smiff puppet of Ed Brayton -- said...
>>>>> I was blocked from posting there because I happened to be using an AOL proxy whose IP address was banned by PT. <
If that was all, what was to be gained by posting from the same IP address using other names? Perhaps the reason that you were banned from PT is the quite reasonable one that they give.<<<<<<
For starters, I could not continue posting from the same IP address because messages from that IP address were blocked. I had to use anonymous proxies (e.g., hidemyass.com).
Furthermore, thinking that my comments were being blocked because the PT bloggers usually disagreed with me, I figured that any comment that was posted under my real name would be deleted on sight.
This banning crap on the Internet has got to end. It is undermining one of the greatest advantages of the Internet -- a tremendous potential enhancement in the free exchange of ideas.
>> For starters, I could not continue posting from the same IP address because messages from that IP address were blocked. I had to use anonymous proxies (e.g., hidemyass.com). <<
In other words, after you had worn out your welcome at PT due to your abuse of the system and violations of PT's rules, you decided to try to get clever and get around your banishment employing anonymous proxies to obfuscate your identity. Now, I'm certain that you've heard of the concept of "ethics." I hope that you can see why your actions are a breach of them. Panda's Thumb is under no obligation to host your arguments, especially when you consistently and deliberately violate their rules, and yet you sought, through underhanded means, to make them do just that.
>> Furthermore, thinking that my comments were being blocked because the PT bloggers usually disagreed with me, I figured that any comment that was posted under my real name would be deleted on sight. <<
You know full well why you were banned from Panda's Thumb, and it wasn't because you disagreed with the others there. Even though arguing with you is generally pointless because you have managed to make Logical Fallacy into an art form. Also the vast majority of your comments centered on you arguing points about which you had little to no knowledge with people who actually possessed said knowledge and refusing to actually concede anything much less your own ignorance.
But none of that is why you were banned from posting there. You were banned for your propensity of creating aliases for yourself in direct contravention of PT's rules. This was pointed out to you many times before you were finally banned, so please, don't try the "I'm an innocent victim of the big mean censors" routine because it doesn't wash. You abused the hospitality that was provided you by the folks at Panda's Thumb, and they banned you because of it. Not, as you like to whine, because you disagreed with the others there.
>> This banning crap on the Internet has got to end. It is undermining one of the greatest advantages of the Internet -- a tremendous potential enhancement in the free exchange of ideas. <<
Oh, please. Panda's Thumb rarely takes the step of actually banning commenter. It is not a step that they take lightly. This is not about the free exchange of ideas, this is about you proving yourself to be a repeated and unremorseful abuser of the privileges you were granted. Sometimes you just have to say "Good-bye," to people who act as you do.
You were given an opportunity to engage in the Free Exchange of Ideas. You screwed up by abusing the system, period. The buck stops with you.
If not for your violations of PT's rules, you would probably still be allowed there, even though your arguments were vacuous, you never demonstrated the ability to support your claims, you made bald assertions, you tried to pass yourself off as an authority on things you knew nothing about.
Basically, every snivelling little underhanded trick you tried to pull on PT you pull here, down to the impersonations. Lucky for you, you're not likely to ban yourself from commenting on your blog.
But your arguments are still largely without merit, and most of your posts, rather than being controversial, seems to indicate that when you DO find something that may justify and argument you are making, you just cherry-pick the parts that you think will support you without actually reading (and comprehending) your selections. Again, pretty much par for the course.
> This banning crap on the Internet has got to end. It is undermining one of the greatest advantages of the Internet -- a tremendous potential enhancement in the free exchange of ideas. <
Then perhaps you can explain why you don't want to include your brother in this free exchange of ideas? Why did you ask your mother to call him and ask him to stay off of your blog?
As with your other inconsistent ideas, you are claiming that you were more or less blocked by accident because of your IP address. If that was the case, why not just post under your own name using anonymous proxies? You could also have posted through your pacbell.net IP since you were claiming that it was only your IP that was blocked.
Obviously it was you, not your IP that was being blocked. Panda's Thumb and CW were not blocking anyone who disagreed with them, they were blocking you. It doesn't matter what name you put on your posts. Anyone can see your handwriting all over them. They have the ranting and paranoia of a mad man.
Don't bother to ask your mother to call me to get me to stop posting. It won't work.
Rob Serrano said...
"when you DO find something that may justify and argument you are making, you just cherry-pick the parts that you think will support you without actually reading (and comprehending) your selections."
Exactly. It is amazing the number of times Larry has quoted something and then demonstrated his lack of understanding of it, or even linked to sites that show his foolishness. He linked to a site that showed his lack of understanding of IP addresses, then he linked to another that proved the authenticity of the posts by his real brother.
I am curious, Larry. You have demonstrated that Bill Carter is a real person who was your friend and he obviously knows a great deal about you. Therefore I am willing to believe what he says about you having your Mom call. Why do you find your brother's posts so threatening? They seem to be quite reasonable to me. (That is the posts from the real Dave, not your inane imitations.) Keep with us, Dave. You are a definite asset to this blog.
Now let's not get back to the real subject of this thread: Larry's growing insanity.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/01/2006 05:31:27 AM ) --
>>>>>Now, I'm certain that you've heard of the concept of "ethics." I hope that you can see why your actions are a breach of them.<<<<<<
LOL The pot's calling the kettle black.
>>>>> Panda's Thumb is under no obligation to host your arguments, especially when you consistently and deliberately violate their rules, and yet you sought, through underhanded means, to make them do just that<<<<<
As I've said umpteen times already, I was banned from PT before I violated any of the rules, and I posted under multiple names because I had to.
IMO, PT is obligated to host my arguments, because the PT staff claims that it does not practice arbitrary censorship, and because they proudly display the logo of a 2005 Scientific American magazine web award, which I presume represents -- or should represent -- minimal ethical standards of blog operation.
>>>>>Panda's Thumb rarely takes the step of actually banning commenter. It is not a step that they take lightly.<<<<<
LOL -- what a joke. It seems that the PT staff knew that by banning that IP address, they were blocking my comments even though I had not broken any of the rules, but they thought, "well, we wanted to get rid of Larry Fafarman anyway."
>>>>>Also the vast majority of your comments centered on you arguing points about which you had little to no knowledge with people who actually possessed said knowledge and refusing to actually concede anything much less your own ignorance.<<<<<
My comments on PT were exceptionally well documented with references -- I wasn't just stating wild unsubstantiated opinions.
Most of the people who said that they disagreed with me did not even attempt to say why. I would feel very foolish saying that I disagreed with someone without saying why.
The PT staff is extremely intolerant of opinions that they disagree with. For example, Herr Fuhrer Wesley Elsberry, the owner of Panda's Thumb, once banned further discussion of my opinion that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments on the evolution lesson plan before -- not after -- voting on whether to keep the plan. His reason? His reason was that he was not aware that any of the public commenters in Ohio had complained about it!
>>>>>But your arguments are still largely without merit, and most of your posts, rather than being controversial, seems to indicate that when you DO find something that may justify and argument you are making, you just cherry-pick the parts that you think will support you without actually reading (and comprehending) your selections.<<<<<
You are of course free to present facts and/or arguments that contradict what I have said here, but so far you have done nothing. You are just a big bag of hot air.
> IMO, PT is obligated to host my arguments, because the PT staff claims that it does not practice arbitrary censorship <
Their censorship of you was not arbitrary in any way.
> My comments on PT were exceptionally well documented with references <
The references were often at best irrelevant or at worst tended to disprove your case.
> I wasn't just stating wild unsubstantiated opinions. <
Then your posts were different than on this blog?
> Most of the people who said that they disagreed with me did not even attempt to say why. <
Most of them did say why. You seem to believe that if you don't agree with something or you don't understand it, it has not been said.
> I would feel very foolish saying that I disagreed with someone without saying why. <
Then you must feel very foolish.
Rob Serrano said...
> you just cherry-pick the parts that you think will support you without actually reading (and comprehending) your selections.<
Your observation could not be more precise!
Bill Carter (?) said ( 6/01/2006 06:08:43 AM ) --
<<<<<<> This banning crap on the Internet has got to end. It is undermining one of the greatest advantages of the Internet -- a tremendous potential enhancement in the free exchange of ideas. <
Then perhaps you can explain why you don't want to include your brother in this free exchange of ideas?<<<<<<
You know that you (if you exist), Ed Brayton, and the fake Dave (if he exists) are not welcome here. You are just a bunch of lousy hypocrites who believe in the free exchange of ideas on this blog and censorship on other blogs. Unfortunately, my no-censorship policy prevents me from deleting your comments here.
>>>>>As with your other inconsistent ideas, you are claiming that you were more or less blocked by accident because of your IP address. If that was the case, why not just post under your own name using anonymous proxies? <<<<<
I presumed I was banned either because the PT staffers disagreed with my ideas or because the PT threads were being cluttered up with responses to me that contained nothing but insults and ad hominem attacks. And at the time I did not even know exactly how I was being blocked. There are several ways of blocking comments -- (1) by IP address, (2) by posting name, (3) by email address (if stated), and (4) by cookies (files that visited websites deposit on your hard drive). There may be other ways. PT might have even been deliberately blocking my comments by another method as well -- I later learned that the PT staff suspected me, without any evidence, of posting rude comments under another name. I had no idea what the PT staff was thinking -- my only aim was to conceal my identity as well as I could. It didn't work because some PT commenters recognized my ideas and because there are so few dissident comments on PT that virtually any dissident comment was presumed to be mine.
Yes, I know -- everyone else is perfect and only Larry Fafarman could possibly be at fault.
>>>>>Obviously it was you, not your IP that was being blocked.<<<<<
When you block an IP address, you block all the people who use that address, moron.
>>>>Don't bother to ask your mother to call me to get me to stop posting. It won't work.<<<<
I can assure you that my mother won't try to call you, Ed.
> You know that you (if you exist), Ed Brayton, and the fake Dave (if he exists) are not welcome here. <
Stop the bullcrap Larry. After 50 years, you should know that I exist. As for the fake Dave, he is your creation. You seem to have no concern for posts by the fake Dave. It is only the posts by the real Dave, your brother, that bother you.
> You are just a bunch of lousy hypocrites who believe in the free exchange of ideas on this blog and censorship on other blogs. <
Neither I, nor your brother Dave, are in favor of censorship on other blogs. I can't speak for Shemp, Moe, or Curly.
> Unfortunately, my no-censorship policy prevents me from deleting your comments here. <
You don't follow your own rules on other things. Why would you (if you do) on this one?
> or because the PT threads were being cluttered up with responses to me that contained nothing but insults and ad hominem attacks. <
Is there anyone who engages more in insults and ad hominem attacks than you? If so show me.
> my only aim was to conceal my identity as well as I could. <
You failed because your mindless blather is so easily identifiable. It doesn't matter what name you put on your irrational rants. Anyone can spot them.
> virtually any dissident comment was presumed to be mine. <
No. It was just the mindless blather. It is possible that some other lunatic was also posting at the time but since you did it once, you became the natural suspect when anyone appeared to be insane.
> When you block an IP address, you block all the people who use that address, moron. <
Yes dimwit, but when you use another IP address and you are still blocked, you might realize that it is you and your crap that is being blocked.
> I can assure you that my mother won't try to call you, Ed. <
I doubt that she has Ed's number. She has mine. It hasn't changed.
Dave didn't try to tell her what was really going on when she called because he knew that you would be standing over her and might go into another of your tantrums if he did. Why don't you show a little more respect for your mother and not get her involved in this. It is enough that the poor lady has to support you.
Larry,
You should not try to rid this blog of its greatest contributors. You now have 50 posts here discussing your lack of mental capacity. No other subject has drawn such attention. Let's give credit where credit is due:
Number of posts
real Larry 12
fake Larry 1
VIW 7
Shemp Fafarman 6
Bill Carter 5
Lou FCD 4
real Dave Fafarman 3
Moe Fafarman 2
Rob Serrano 1
Historical Figures 9
Total 50
It has been a pleasure to have been so great a factor in your success.
The problem is that this thread is still titled "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science". Why not open a new thread? I have some suggestions for hot topics:
1. Tourette's Syndrome and how it is related to your constant insults and ad hominym attacks.
2. Your denial of your brother Dave and your old friend Bill Carter.
3. Your extraordinary status as the oldest virgin in Los Angeles.
4. How Ed Brayton is destroying your employment prospects.
5. Your delutional belief in your own importance.
6. What your life was like before the abduction to the planed Mongo.
Bill Carter (?) said ( 6/01/2006 01:27:23 PM ) --
>>>>Neither I, nor your brother Dave, are in favor of censorship on other blogs.<<<<<
Wrong. Both you and fake Dave have posted comments attacking me on Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog, and you both know that I am banned there. Stop this bullshit. You are just lousy hypocrites. That is all there is to it.
>>>>>> Unfortunately, my no-censorship policy prevents me from deleting your comments here. <
You don't follow your own rules on other things. Why would you (if you do) on this one?<<<<<
Wrong. I said that I would not delete any comments, and I have strictly adhered to that policy, even when some commenters have obviously taken advantage of it.
>>>>>Is there anyone who engages more in insults and ad hominem attacks than you? If so show me.<<<<<
OK. Here is what PT blogger Steve Reuland said --
Trying to rebut the nonsense he posts is perectly fine, but almost no one who responds to him tries to do that. What they do instead is spew out a dozen or more responses consisting of rude name-calling, some of them simply saying "shut up Larry". From --
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/the_south_carol.html#comment-85872
>>>>>>Dave didn't try to tell her what was really going on when she called because he knew that you would be standing over her and might go into another of your tantrums if he did. <<<<<
Fake Dave is of course lying -- my mother did not call him because we don't even know if he exists, let alone what his phone number is. And he is certainly not my brother. Anyway, neither you nor the fake Dave has said anything here in defense of your indefensible acts of attacking me on another blog where I cannot defend myself because I am banned.
Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Judge Jones, not about me. Talk about being off-topic -- sheeeesh.
Larry,
You broke your agreement to stop lying about your brother. The gloves are off.
VoiceInWilderness said ( 6/01/2006 05:11:51 PM ) --
>>>>Larry,
You broke your agreement to stop lying about your brother. The gloves are off. <<<<<
The gloves are "off"? The gloves were never on.
I never said that I would stop "lying" about fake Dave. I only said I would stop talking about him. Anyway, I think that I said that before fake Dave started posting comments here again. And I also hoped -- falsely -- that others would follow my lead by ceasing to talk about him.
> Both you and fake Dave have posted comments attacking me on Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog,<
I have not posted any comments attacking you on "Dispatches" nor has the real Dave. We have both posted messages explaining what might be causing you to be off your rocker. Dave was trying to get people to be more patient with you. Neither I nor your brother have any control over what you post there as the fake Dave.
> What they do instead is spew out a dozen or more responses consisting of rude name-calling,<
Such as your -
"those goddamsonuvabitchhell bastards"
"you stupid moron"
"It's like this, you stupid, feeble-minded cretin"
> some of them simply saying "shut up Larry". <
Such as your
"Shut up."
> Fake Dave is of course lying <
We know that. Since you are the fake Dave, we have no control over these posts. You do.
> my mother did not call him because we don't even know if he exists, <
You may not. Your mother knows who her older child is.
> And he is certainly not my brother. <
Even though he has the same mother and father?
> Anyway, neither you nor the fake Dave has said anything here in defense of your indefensible acts of attacking me on another blog where I cannot defend myself because I am banned.<
Read them again. The worst posts are the ones you put there as the fake Dave. The ones from the real Dave are quite nice. At least they are intelligently written.
It is obvious to everyone that you do not object to "Shemp Fafarman", "Curly Fafarman", "Moe Fafarman", or "Martha Fafarman" but My name and that of your brother Dave get a real rise out of you.
You have the power to stop all of the posts by fake Dave on both blogs. Stop making them. In the mean time stop complaining about posts from the real Dave and me. Dave foolishly believes that it is possible to say something that will bring you back down to Earth. I have no such misconceptions.
I have let some of your old friends know that you are going insane. They all say "Has anything changed?" When you started your idea two years ago that you were going to die in the next 48 hours I knew you were on the way off of the planet. Next was the idea that the Los Angeles Times was produced and distributed with supernatural help. The same for the World Almanac. Perhaps that happens on your planet. I also wasn't impressed at Flasco's Restaurant in the Marina when you flipped out and started running around screaming at the customers about how you had fighting for their interests and deserved appreciation.
This is not an attack. This is a completely accurate description of your actions.
Bill Carter (?) said ( 6/01/2006 05:38:57 PM ) --
>>>>>I have not posted any comments attacking you on "Dispatches" nor has the real Dave. We have both posted messages explaining what might be causing you to be off your rocker.<<<<<
Bill, or Ed, or whoever in the hell you are -- it is obvious that you are so full of shit that it is coming out your ears, but unfortunately some of the readers here have shown themselves to be too dumb to see your obvious self-contradiction. First you say that you and the fake Dave did not attack me on the "Dispatches" blog, then you say that you said there that I was "off" my "rocker."
>>>>It is obvious to everyone that you do not object to "Shemp Fafarman", "Curly Fafarman", "Moe Fafarman", or "Martha Fafarman" but My name and that of your brother Dave get a real rise out of you. <<<<<
Those Fafarmans are obviously fictional -- they don't pretend to be real.
Pretty soon I am going to stop wasting time responding to your comments. I shouldn't care about readers who are too dumb to see that you are a crackpot.
> I never said that I would stop "lying" about fake Dave. <
And you never did stop lying about the real Dave.
> I think that I said that before fake Dave started posting comments here again. <
I haven't seen a slingle post by fakd Dave under this subject. You put those in a previous thread. There are some posts from your brother, the real Dave though.
> And I also hoped -- falsely -- that others would follow my lead by ceasing to talk about him. <
Nobody talks about the fake Dave until you bring him up and you seem to have stopped posting under that name.
The posts by your brother Dave are quite interesting. I hope that your "running to Mom" has not discouraged him from further posts.
> Bill, or Ed, or whoever in the hell you are <
You know who I am.
> it is obvious that you are so full of shit that it is coming out your ears, <
What was it you said about ad hominem attacks?
> First you say that you and the fake Dave did not attack me on the "Dispatches" blog, <
I did not say anything about what the fake Dave did.
> then you say that you said there that I was "off" my "rocker."<
This not an attack. This is an observation of the truth.
> they don't pretend to be real. <
The real Dave and I don't pretend to be real. As you know, we are real.
> I shouldn't care about readers who are too dumb to see that you are a crackpot. <
Your readers are smart enough to see that you are a crackpot.
Perhaps the problem is chemical. Are you still living off of cheap beer and potato chips?
>>>>>This not an attack. This is an observation of the truth.<<<<<
Someone's opinion of the truth can be an attack. Even the truth itself can be an attack -- if you tell the truth about someone but that truth is not relevant to the discussion or the person cannot defend himself, then the truth is definitely an attack.
Enough of this shit. I hereby declare that commenters who have made nothing but evasive off-topic comments on this thread have thereby tacitly admitted acceptance of everything that I said in my opening post. Finis.
Larry said, "Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Judge Jones, not about me. Talk about being off-topic -- sheeeesh."
I agree -- it should be all about how nefarious, how unjust, how inept I am. (And how I do love being in the limelight!) According to the thread heading, I got straight F's in all of the applicable subjects.
(BTW, be sure to also secure some complaints from the evangelicals who recommended to President Bush that he nominate me to the federal bench. I make a great Darwinist patsy, don't I?)
"Even the truth itself can be an attack" - Larry Fafarman
I am going to have a plaque made up with that statement on it just to show how far out people can get.
> or the person cannot defend himself <
You could defend yourself but instead you spout a pack of lies.
> I hereby declare that commenters who have made nothing but evasive off-topic comments on this thread have thereby tacitly admitted acceptance of everything that I said in my opening post. <
Further proof of your lunacy, an imperial declaration!
Let's try it. I hereby declare that Larry Fafarman has proven that he no longer can tell reality from fantasy.
BTW, from my CV on Wikipedia:
Jones was assigned to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District bench trial, the first direct challenge brought in the federal courts against a school district that mandated the teaching of intelligent design. He was praised by Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Governor and former head of the Department of Homeland Security, who said that "I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue...he has an inquisitive mind, a penetrating intellect and an incredible sense of humor."
On December 20, 2005, Jones ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional in a 139-page decision.
After the ruling was handed down right-wing pundits immediately attacked it, notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News accusing Jones of being a fascist and an activist judge.
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League on February 10, 2006 he responded to critics who claimed that he had "stabbed the evangelicals who got him onto the federal bench right in the back" by noting that his duty was to the constitution and not to special interest groups.
Larry said, "Enough of this shit. I hereby declare that commenters who have made nothing but evasive off-topic comments on this thread have thereby tacitly admitted acceptance of everything that I said in my opening post. Finis."
We are waiting with bated breath for you to tell us when we should sample your blog so as to ascertain the truth of your assertions. Of course you'll have to tell us which posts to consider as "evasive" and "off-topic" ... (presumably to include this one).
Bill,
Don't you know that for Larry, insisting on the truth is "nitpicking"?
You have proven your point. Larry is a liar and SBC Dave is the real Dave. You know Larry will never admit the truth and you don't seem to be enjoying this as I am. Why are you still here?
Still, I would like to know more about Larry's situation. He claims to be 60 years old even though he has the mind of a child. You say that you have known him for over 50 years so that would tend to indicate that he is really that age plus or minus. You also indicate that Dave is older but don't say how much.
The question is, wouldn't that make his mother well over 80? Is the fool actually living with her? If so, she definitely has my sympathy. Imagine a woman of that age having to put up with the a delusional raging schizo!
SBC (real) Dave, come back. Your posts were much more interesting than Bill's. He is taking this too seriously.
>> >>>>>Now, I'm certain that you've heard of the concept of "ethics." I hope that you can see why your actions are a breach of them.<<<<<< <<
>> LOL The pot's calling the kettle black. <<
Well, if you can find an ethical violation that I have committed, please feel free to show it. I'll be waiting for it. It shouldn't be that hard for someone of your (albeit self-professed) ability, since I'm not posting under an alias and never have.
>> >>>>> Panda's Thumb is under no obligation to host your arguments, especially when you consistently and deliberately violate their rules, and yet you sought, through underhanded means, to make them do just that<<<<< <<
>> As I've said umpteen times already, I was banned from PT before I violated any of the rules, and I posted under multiple names because I had to. <<
Uh hello, I was there, watching the entire episode unfold. I saw your abuse of PT as it was unfolding. The abuses were yours not the PT's.
>> IMO, PT is obligated to host my arguments, because the PT staff claims that it does not practice arbitrary censorship, and because they proudly display the logo of a 2005 Scientific American magazine web award, which I presume represents -- or should represent -- minimal ethical standards of blog operation. <<
Wrong, PT isn't obligated to host your so-called "arguments." Your pointless hijacking of numerous threads was allowed far longer than it needed to be. You contributed absolutely nothing to PT besides countless baseless claims and arguments that you didn't even really understand. Some members of PT found you amusing for a while, but many of them grew tired of you before you got yourself banned. The admins at PT gave you all the rope you needed to hang yourself with and you did so with gusto.
>> >>>>>Panda's Thumb rarely takes the step of actually banning commenter. It is not a step that they take lightly.<<<<< <<
>> LOL -- what a joke. It seems that the PT staff knew that by banning that IP address, they were blocking my comments even though I had not broken any of the rules, but they thought, "well, we wanted to get rid of Larry Fafarman anyway." <<
Oh, that's right, I forgot. In Larry-land nothing that happens to you is ever your fault. It's always someone else's doing.
Get real. You abused the system and broke its rules and its administrators decided to ban you because of it, as is their right and responsibility. No amount of spinning and contorting will ever change that fact. But feel free to continue trying to play the victim card.
>> >>>>>Also the vast majority of your comments centered on you arguing points about which you had little to no knowledge with people who actually possessed said knowledge and refusing to actually concede anything much less your own ignorance.<<<<< <<
>> My comments on PT were exceptionally well documented with references -- I wasn't just stating wild unsubstantiated opinions. <<
Again, I was there, I saw your comments, and I saw the references. Your references were most often cherry-picked to find the passages that you thought would support you, even though the entirety of the referenced article said something completely different. In other cases it became painfully obvious that you didn't have a clue what was actually being said.
>> Most of the people who said that they disagreed with me did not even attempt to say why. I would feel very foolish saying that I disagreed with someone without saying why. <<
Actually, most of the commenters handily refuted your supposed arguments by virtue of either presenting references from actual credible sources or, drawing upon their experience as actual trained professional, trivially refuted your readings of the articles you were referencing. It didn't really matter what was said, though, because your response would normally be to ignore the contrary responses.
>> The PT staff is extremely intolerant of opinions that they disagree with. For example, Herr Fuhrer Wesley Elsberry, the owner of Panda's Thumb, once banned further discussion of my opinion that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments on the evolution lesson plan before -- not after -- voting on whether to keep the plan. His reason? His reason was that he was not aware that any of the public commenters in Ohio had complained about it! <<
I wonder if Godwin's Law should be invoked here? Contributors at PT are allowed to close threads that they have initiated. What's your point, besides exercising your overriding desire to insult those who you think have wronged you in the past.
>> >>>>>But your arguments are still largely without merit, and most of your posts, rather than being controversial, seems to indicate that when you DO find something that may justify and argument you are making, you just cherry-pick the parts that you think will support you without actually reading (and comprehending) your selections.<<<<< <<
>> You are of course free to present facts and/or arguments that contradict what I have said here, but so far you have done nothing. You are just a big bag of hot air. <<
Wow, I've just been called a "big bag of hot air" by the Hindenburg. I've addressed all of the points I was aiming at.
Just for the record, Larry, I was the one who said you were off your rocker. I also said I wouldn't be taking pot shots at you, and I've kept my word on that. I also mentioned you might want to lighten up before you blow a gasket, and I meant that. I really do wish there were something you might blog about that was better for your health.
Hey, Carolina's going to the cup! Half the damned team is former Flyers, so that's good news.
John E. Jones III said ( 6/01/2006 07:51:06 PM ) --
>>>>>(from Wikipedia) After the ruling was handed down right-wing pundits immediately attacked it, notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News accusing Jones of being a fascist and an activist judge.
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League on February 10, 2006 he responded to critics who claimed that he had "stabbed the evangelicals who got him onto the federal bench right in the back" by noting that his duty was to the constitution and not to special interest groups. <<<<<
I agree with you here, John -- politics should be kept out of the courts. However, I am very disturbed by your commencement address at Dickinson College, where you defined "true religion" as a hostility towards organized religion -- i.e., you said, "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."(emphasis added) I think that this hostility towards organized religion disqualifies you from deciding any establishment clause case.
Larry Fafarman said...
> John E. Jones III said <
I knew he would crack! Now he is arguing with himself!
Rob Serrano said ( 6/01/2006 08:51:24 PM ) --
>>>>Well, if you can find an ethical violation that I have committed, please feel free to show it..<<<<<
You have made charges against me which you know to be false.
>>>>Your pointless hijacking of numerous threads was allowed far longer than it needed to be. <<<<<
And you think that the threads on this blog have not been "hijacked" by trolls like you? Unfortunately, I have to put up with your crap because of my no-censorship pledge.
>>>>You contributed absolutely nothing to PT besides countless baseless claims and arguments that you didn't even really understand. <<<<<
And what have you contributed here? You have not even contributed as much as "baseless claims and arguments," which at least could be starting points for discussions -- all you have done here is just attack me personally.
>>>>Again, I was there, I saw your comments, and I saw the references. Your references were most often cherry-picked to find the passages that you thought would support you, even though the entirety of the referenced article said something completely different.<<<<
I gave URL links to the articles. Everyone was free to give their own interpretations of the articles.
>>>>It didn't really matter what was said, though, because your response would normally be to ignore the contrary responses.<<<<<
I often had no contrary responses to ignore. Here is what PT blogger Steve Reuland said:
Trying to rebut the nonsense he posts is perectly fine, but almost no one who responds to him tries to do that. What they do instead is spew out a dozen or more responses consisting of rude name-calling, some of them simply saying "shut up Larry". From --
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/the_south_carol.html#comment-85872
>>>>I wonder if Godwin's Law should be invoked here? Contributors at PT are allowed to close threads that they have initiated. <<<<<
Godwin's Law -- also known as Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies -- fits Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced "Velsberry") quite well.
For one thing, Herr Fuhrer Welsberry was not closing the whole thread -- he was just cutting off discussion on the particular issue I raised, i.e., that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments before making the decision.
Closing a thread is very inconsiderate because it can cut off a discussion in the middle. Threads should not be closed even if they have been inactive for a long time, because someone might want to post a comment on an old inactive thread. That is what I like about the blog services that have a list of the most recent comments placed anywhere on the blog. It is about time that you and the PT bloggers (that includes Ed Brayton, of course) learned the basics of blog courtesy.
>>>>>Wow, I've just been called a "big bag of hot air" by the Hindenburg.<<<<<
The Hindenburg had no hot air, moron. It was filled with hydrogen.
>>>> I've addressed all of the points I was aiming at. <<<<<
And none were the points that I raised on this blog. I guess that means that you have conceded them all. I declare you to be the loser by default. That's all there is to it.
Larry has said that I attacked him on Ed Brayton's blog. Like nearly everything he says now, it is a lie. I don't think that he even knows the difference any more. I am repeating my message here so others may determine if it is a personal attack:
-------------------------
Ed Brayton has the Dave, non-Dave situation completely figured out. Larry has now posted a new message claiming to have come from Dave on his site. Anyone reading it will quickly see that it is Larry's work. I posted on his site twice and he now has answered that he talked to his brother and that Dave said "Who the hell is this Bill Carter?" The real Dave knows who I am.
I have known both Dave and Larry for over 50 years and am in nearly daily phone contact with Dave although we live more than 400 miles apart. I live about 5 miles from Larry but have not been in contact with him since his insanity became too hard to take. I don't have Dave's patience.
The crazyness shown on his blog is quite mild compared to what one would witness in person. He is quite convinced that the world that he sees is just an illusion and that the rest of us are in on the gag. He is furious that we won't admit this.
I believe that his problem has been made worse by a few family members (not Dave) attempting to humor him. When he says something outrageous, it should be treated as such. On the other hand, some of the comments that he has received on his blog seem only to be the product of viciousness. While he continues to self-destruct, the sharks seem to be circling, having smelled the blood in the water.
It is hard not to lose patience with him. When he answers only with insults and personal attack, it is difficult not to answer in kind. I have been far less successful in resisting this than has Dave. It is painful to watch an old friend deteriorating so publicly. At the same time, I can't help checking into his blog now and then to be amazed by what happens next.
I guess what I am asking is that others exhibit more patience with Larry than I have been able to show him.
--------------------------
Dave's message was far more compassionate than mine. He deserves much more than he gets from his brother.
As for me, I no longer have even the limited patience with Larry that I used to.
Larry, you should thank Ed. He explained why he has dropped off of your blog. As he says:
"We casually refer to people as being "nuts" and "insane" all the time, but his behavior over the last couple weeks has shown that Larry genuinely is mentally ill; it isn't sound sport to agitate the clinically insane."
To VoiceInWilderness,
Yes, Larry and Dave's mother is in her 80s. I don't feel free to say much else about her other than she deserves better. Larry lives in a condo that she owns which is directly above the one in which she lives. Dispite her assistence, he treats her miserably, shouting at her if she says anything with which he doesn't agree.
Bill Carter (Ed Brayton?) said --
>>>>>Larry has said that I attacked him on Ed Brayton's blog. Like nearly everything he says now, it is a lie........ I am repeating my message here so others may determine if it is a personal attack:
......The crazyness shown on his blog is quite mild compared to what one would witness in person.......<<<<<<
I no longer have to make "Bill Carter" look like a liar -- he does that well enough himself.
It is really a shame that the hecklers have ruined this thread. There were a few worthwhile on-topic comments here, but they are lost in all the garbage. These hecklers are probably mostly jealous because I have done something that they are unable to do -- create a nice blog. They have imposed upon my no-censorship policy.
> I no longer have to make "Bill Carter" look like a liar -- he does that well enough himself. <
So far his posts have only shown him to be a caring person with perhaps a short fuse and growing frustration. How would you like it if a good friend continued to deny your existence. As to his describing your "craziness", this doesn't qualify as a personal attack. It is simply an accurate description. Why would any of us question that someone who comes across on this and other blogs as a nutcase would be the same in person? He has certainly proven what we all know, that you are a pathological liar. You can't even seem to tell the truth when it is in your best interest.
As for your brother, the real Dave, he must be a saint to put up with your crap as far as he does. Here is a thoughtful compassionate eloquent man with a thoughtless selfish raving lunatic for a brother.
> It is really a shame that the hecklers have ruined this thread. <
On the contrary, the people you call hecklers have rescued your failed blog. There are less than a half dozen comments posted to your last four or five other topics. In contrast, there are 75 comments here and I am sure more to come. Only a few even mention the original dull dry title subject. By changing the thread to the more interesting subject of your lunacy, I have helped give you the attention that you seem to so badly need.
> These hecklers are probably mostly jealous because I have done something that they are unable to do -- create a nice blog. <
There is the proof! Delusions of grandeur.
> They have imposed upon my no-censorship policy. <
I predict that the no-censorship policy will not last. Posts will start to disappear while you will continue to claim such a policy. You can't help it. The truth is a stranger to you.
Bill Carter - I ask again why you are still here? While your frustration is obvious, you still seem to be concerned about your ex-friend. You yourself have stated that he won't change. Real Dave at least seems to have come to terms with the situation.
In contrast, I can't wait to see the next episode. Here we have a person decrying being called a clown while publicly putting on more grease paint! Larry is still my favorite lab rat.
Don't sweat it, VIW. I really don't care that much anymore, although I hate to see my friend Dave being dragged through this. At this point I am enjoying seeing Larry twist in the wind.
I criticize his parents a little for his current state. When Larry started filing his ridiculous suits over the auto tax, his mother thought he was the new Clarence Darrow. When they now see him howling at the moon, I would assume that they believe he is the new Caruso.
Larry has always been a little odd. The real problems seem to have come when he lost his last job more than a decade ago. Even before that his jobs were always menial considering his education. He seemed to feel a need for a purpose in his life. Unfortunately his crusades have usually been on the wrong side of issues that were inconsequential at best.
One of his past projects was the defense of the flag of the Army of Western Virginia, the one that most people now misidentify as the Confederate flag. I agree with his position on this. The controversy is being used as a fund raiser by scoundrels and a political distraction. This interest has led Larry to study the Civil War (which he describes as "Legend" and "Folklore". He even once joined a group of descendants of Confederate veterans although he does not have, and does not claim to have Confederate ancestors.
What this leads to is perhaps the only defense of intelligent design that I have ever seen that holds any water at all:
"There may be those among you who believe that you are descended from apes. A few of you may believe that I am descended from an ape, but I defy any of you to stand here and say that General Robert E. Lee is descended from an ape!"
- Gen. George E. Pickett, CSA
Dave,
The name came, as you might guess, indirectly from the New Testament: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight "(Mark 1:3), but it came to me in a roundabout way.
When I was a teenager I went to visit some relatives in the midwest. I was traveling by Greyhound bus and on the return trip, I was seated next to a self-ordained pastor named Dr. J. Royce Thomason from Frederick, Oklahoma. Most of the young people who were traveling by themselves were misbehaving due to their newfound and perhaps temporary freedom. I was not. This impressed Mr. Thomason to the extent that he not only wrote a letter to my parents, but he put me on the mailing list for his monthly newsletter by the name of "The Voice in the Wilderness."
Although I did not continue to correspond with him beyond my initial thank you for his letter, he continued to send his newsletter for many decades. I believe that it is no longer being published and he, if he is still alive, would be very old. I am not religious but I always looked forward to his newsletter. In addition to an opening article of a religious nature, it would contain discussions about upcoming world events. These often went by a standard format; First a prediction of what would happen, next would be what the press or government would say were the reasons, and finally what he deemed to be the real reasons. Uncannily his predictions of what would happen, and what the claimed reasons for it would be, were usually correct.
When I found this irrational drivel on Larry's blog, I believed that If he were to be hit over the head hard and often enough, he might recover his wits. Of course there is also the threat that it would just drive him over the edge. There was nothing to lose. Since I felt that I would be the voice of sanity in a logical wilderness, I selected this name. I should properly have called myself "Voice In The Wilderness."
I am a contract engineer. Because of the nature of my work, I can't have my name dragged around in a public controversy the way yours has been and the way mine would be if I were to disclose it here. If you have specific questions about me that would not otherwise be identifying, I will answer them. Perhaps you could slowly find out who I am in the way of the old TV show "I've Got a Secret".
> It seemed to me that he had won that one. <
His side won in spite of him.
>(Or maybe someone else won it after he made it an issue.)<
He was not the one who made it an issue. He was a Johnny come lately and considered by the other plaintifs as a loose cannon. His nonsense tended to muddy the waters and weaken their case. They tried very hard to get rid of him. When they won in spite of him, he jumped in to take credit.
My uncle had railroad tracks running through his property. The train came through on the same schedule each day. His dog would see the oncoming train and would start barking furiously to drive it off, yet it still advanced. Eventually the dog's courage would fail and he would run like hell away from it. This course would naturally parallel the tracks.
When he saw the train coming by without wounding him irreparably, he would slowly regain his courage. As the train passed out of the other end of my uncle's property, he would be found hot on its trail again barking furiously. As the train disappeared in the distance, the dog would strut back with his chest out, quite satisfied with his performance and await the next coming of the train.
That pretty much describes Larry's part in the auto tax issue.
> Argh! Sorry about the 2 spurious posts <
It's O.K. All of Larrys have been spurious.
This blog was not created for the purpose of Larry-bashing. Those who want to bash Larry should set up their own blogs for that purpose.
The trolls are unable to counter my arguments here so they figure that the only way to defeat this blog is to sabotage it with off-topic comments, with most of these comments attacking me personally.
All I can say is that this blog is making me look very good -- those who say that they disagree with my articles are mostly unable to say why. There are certainly other blogs that are run by alleged "crackpots," but I have not seen any other such blog that has attracted as many comments as this one. Thank you, trolls, for the wonderful unintended compliment you have paid me.
> Those who want to bash Larry should set up their own blogs for that purpose. <
Why reinvent the wheel?
> The trolls are unable to counter my arguments here <
Then who are all of these people who have so very effectively countered your arguments?
> with most of these comments attacking me personally. <
Returning your attacks in kind.
You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you.
> All I can say is that this blog is making me look very good <
See! I told you that he was delusional.
> those who say that they disagree with my articles are mostly unable to say why. <
They have been saying why. This is the core of your problem. You believe that if you don't agree with or understand what someone says, they haven't said it.
> I have not seen any other such blog that has attracted as many comments as this one. <
I have not seen any other blogs wher such a clear case of clinical insanity is displayed. If you are aware of others, please name them so I can have more fun.
> Thank you, trolls, for the wonderful unintended compliment you have paid me.the wonderful unintended compliment you have paid me. <
You are quite welcome. We will continue to help you to keep your site interesting. Being called a troll by the head troll is indeed a complement.
This is not my real brother. I am my real brother!
> Incidentally, whatever it was that was hosing my downloads seems to have gotten better, in fact better than I expected.<
There you go! Two subjects in one post again. You will confuse him.
>> >>>>Well, if you can find an ethical violation that I have committed, please feel free to show it..<<<<< <<
>> You have made charges against me which you know to be false. <<
Prove it. I have made no false charges. The worst that you can accuse me of is stating facts that contradict what you would desperately like to believe really happened.
>> >>>>Your pointless hijacking of numerous threads was allowed far longer than it needed to be. <<<<< <<
>> And you think that the threads on this blog have not been "hijacked" by trolls like you? Unfortunately, I have to put up with your crap because of my no-censorship pledge. <<
Read the history, Larry. I was, and still am, responding to statements that YOU have made, lying about your experiences with PT. Unless you are going to accuse yourself of hijacking your own threads, you have no complaint to make about me. Remember, your hijinks at PT included completely derailing threads by starting completely unrelated arguments. As far as me "trolling." No, I simply have a problem allowing people to spread outright lies unchallenged.
>> >>>>You contributed absolutely nothing to PT besides countless baseless claims and arguments that you didn't even really understand. <<<<< <<
>> And what have you contributed here? You have not even contributed as much as "baseless claims and arguments," which at least could be starting points for discussions -- all you have done here is just attack me personally. <<
Let me see, I've addressed your claims that you were somehow abused by the administrators of Panda's Thumb. I'm sorry if you view having your misstatements corrected as a personal attack. Correction, I'm not sorry about it. If you were actually being honest here you wouldn't have to worry about it.
As to me attacking you personally. Since when is exposing dishonesty a personal attack. I have called you no names except in response to your attempts at insulting me. At the same time you are complaining about personal attacks, however, you seem to have no compunction against calling names whenever you have nothing better to say.
>> >>>>Again, I was there, I saw your comments, and I saw the references. Your references were most often cherry-picked to find the passages that you thought would support you, even though the entirety of the referenced article said something completely different.<<<< <<
>> I gave URL links to the articles. Everyone was free to give their own interpretations of the articles. <<
And when they gave their interpretations of the articles, often based on the fact that they actually had backgrounds in the topics of the articles, you would ignore them and/or just republish the same argument again. I've seen the same behavior from you even here, witness the exchange at the top of this thread between yourself and voiceinwilderness. When it was pointed out that Judge Jones wasn't saying what you said he was saying, you responded with:
"That is not what he literally said -- of course Jones would not literally say something like that. I said that is what he essentially said."
And then, to support that you refer to a post on Uncommon Descent (and considering you hate PT so much for what you say are it censorious policies, it's amusing to watch you quote one of the MOST censorious blogs on the planet without so much as a squeak about that).
>> >>>>It didn't really matter what was said, though, because your response would normally be to ignore the contrary responses.<<<<< <<
>> I often had no contrary responses to ignore. Here is what PT blogger Steve Reuland said:
Trying to rebut the nonsense he posts is perectly fine, but almost no one who responds to him tries to do that. What they do instead is spew out a dozen or more responses consisting of rude name-calling, some of them simply saying "shut up Larry". From --
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/the_south_carol.html#comment-85872 <<
Strange how the quote comes from March, close to the time you were banned, after most other readers on PT had grown tired of your games. Anyone can do a search on PT for "Larry Fafarman" to find examples of people engaging your arguments before many simply became exasperated at the pointlessness of debating you since you never actually honestly debated anyone. And then you began your ban-inducing activities of creating aliases (Andy H. and J. Mahoney come to mind). The clincher in all this was when you actually impersonated another poster on PT, which was the activity which actually got you banned.
From PT:
>> Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 12, 2006 11:45 AM (e)
Whacko-Troll!
Dave, J. Mahoney is the banned Larry Fafarman, continuing the practice that got him banned, posting under a fake name (the ban was enforced after he posted as a PT regular, and he has since threatened to post as other regulars, such as myself, in order to get some of out posts banned). You can tell it’s him because of the contents of his Selman v. Cobb argument. Please deal with his posting as you see appropriate (deleting, moving to the Bathroom Wall, disemvowelling, etc.)
(NB - although he will claim otherwise, he was not banned due to the contents of his posts or his views) <<
ref:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/rio_rancho_poli.html#comment-96145
>> >>>>I wonder if Godwin's Law should be invoked here? Contributors at PT are allowed to close threads that they have initiated. <<<<< <<
>> Godwin's Law -- also known as Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies -- fits Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced "Velsberry") quite well.
For one thing, Herr Fuhrer Welsberry was not closing the whole thread -- he was just cutting off discussion on the particular issue I raised, i.e., that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments before making the decision. <<
Now, of course you know that once Godwin's Law is invoked the one who made the attempts at the Nazi reference LOSES THE DEBATE. Thank you so much for conceding.
>> Closing a thread is very inconsiderate because it can cut off a discussion in the middle. Threads should not be closed even if they have been inactive for a long time, because someone might want to post a comment on an old inactive thread. That is what I like about the blog services that have a list of the most recent comments placed anywhere on the blog. It is about time that you and the PT bloggers (that includes Ed Brayton, of course) learned the basics of blog courtesy. <<
Since you haven't shown much courtesy anywhere I've witnessed your antics, you're NOT the person to be lecturing about courtesy. When you're running a blog on your own equipment, then you might be able to salvage some credibility for yourself on when or whether comment threads should be kept open. You don't, though, so hush.
And as to the thought you apparently have that the Nazi comparison is justified because you feel the target was inconsiderate of you, I'm sure that many people will be pleased to learned that rudeness was the Nazis' worst offense. This is where I do attack you personally by calling you a frigging twit.
>> >>>>>Wow, I've just been called a "big bag of hot air" by the Hindenburg.<<<<< <<
>> The Hindenburg had no hot air, moron. It was filled with hydrogen. <<
You know, for someone who professes to be so intelligent, you can be amazingly thick-witted.
I'm well aware of what was used in the Hindenburg. Leave it to you to completely miss the point. I can only imagine the fun you must be at parties.
Here, let me explain it slowly for you. The Hindenburg was a huge metal bag filled with a volatile gas. At the time of its desctruction, it seems most likely that a spark ignited the hydrogen gas. You are like the Hindenberg, filled with combustible gasses just waiting for that spark to come along. Judging by the shrillness you've exhibited on this, your very own blog, it looks like you've already been hit by that spark and you've begun the fall to the ground.
>> >>>> I've addressed all of the points I was aiming at. <<<<< <<
>> And none were the points that I raised on this blog. I guess that means that you have conceded them all. I declare you to be the loser by default. That's all there is to it. <<
Do try not to be a complete fool of course you don't win by default. I'm not obliged to address anything I am not directly responding. Nor am I in need of addressing statements that I feel have already been adequately addressed by others. My non-response to any particular claim you make should not be taken to be an assent to those claims. I was specifically addressing your continued attempts to spin history to make Panda's Thumb out to be the bad guys in your little argument with them. Since one of your posts was entitled "Panda's Thumb Sucks," this is not really out of line, especially when YOU make statements about the evils of PT in other threads.
Besides which, we've already established that YOU'VE lost the argument through Godwin's Law
Rob Serrano,
Although you have had some fierce competition, I nominate you for post of the week.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/02/2006 04:47:05 PM ) --
>>>>>Remember, your hijinks at PT included completely derailing threads by starting completely unrelated arguments.<<<<<
Not true -- my comments on PT were generally on-topic. In contrast, your comments here are completely off-topic. Just look at this thread -- you lousy trolls have completely ruined it. I have already devoted a whole thread to debating the way I was treated by PT and other Internet forums. You should place your comments there, at http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/censorship-on-pandas-thumb-and-aol.html
>>>>>As to me attacking you personally. Since when is exposing dishonesty a personal attack.<<<<<
As I said a zillion times already, my comments were blocked by PT before I broke any of the rules there. And Ed Brayton banned me because he didn't like my ideas.
>>>>And when they gave their interpretations of the articles, often based on the fact that they actually had backgrounds in the topics of the articles, you would ignore them and/or just republish the same argument again.<<<<<
I don't give a damn what their backgrounds are -- they still have to "show me." And I do not have to accept what they show me. And I don't ban people just because I don't accept their arguments.
>>>>> When it was pointed out that Judge Jones wasn't saying what you said he was saying, you responded with: "That is not what he literally said -- of course Jones would not literally say something like that. I said that is what he essentially said."<<<<<
I asserted that Jones essentially said that the "establishment clause" established the "true religion" of the founding fathers, and I stand by that assertion. I later pointed out that Jones' statement also showed hostility towards organized religion.
>>>>>And then, to support that you refer to a post on Uncommon Descent (and considering you hate PT so much for what you say are it censorious policies, it's amusing to watch you quote one of the MOST censorious blogs on the planet without so much as a squeak about that).<<<<<
Uncommon Descent is at least candid about its practice of censorship -- PT is not. Also, in exchange for UD's tip that I could use anonymous proxies (e.g., hidemyass.com) to bypass PT's IP address ban, I promised that I would not publicly criticize UD -- I don't feel that I am breaking any confidentiality here because UD has already admitted to giving me this advice. I wonder why these anonymous proxies seem to be a big secret, anyway -- there are at least hundreds of them on the Internet, maybe more. The PT folks are really stupid for thinking that IP address banning actually works -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/pandas-thumb-sucks.html
>>>>>>Now, of course you know that once Godwin's Law is invoked the one who made the attempts at the Nazi reference LOSES THE DEBATE. Thank you so much for conceding.<<<<<
You mentioned Godwin's Law first, so that means that you lose.
>>>>>When you're running a blog on your own equipment, then you might be able to salvage some credibility for yourself on when or whether comment threads should be kept open. You don't, though, so hush.<<<<<
What in the hell do you mean by "running a blog on your own equipment"? And what is this "hush" crap?
>>>>I'm not obliged to address anything I am not directly responding. Nor am I in need of addressing statements that I feel have already been adequately addressed by others.<<<<
The problem is that relatively few of the many replies I have received here actually address the issues. I had the same problem on Panda's Thumb.
I just want to add the following observation -- A true crank, particularly a crank without a large following (unlike, say, Pat Robertson), would not have gotten all the attention that I have gotten. Inconsequential cranks are generally ignored.
>>>>> When it was pointed out that Judge Jones wasn't saying what you said he was saying, you responded with: "That is not what he literally said -- of course Jones would not literally say something like that. I said that is what he essentially said."<<<<<
< I asserted that Jones essentially said that the "establishment clause" established the "true religion" of the founding fathers, and I stand by that assertion. >
Larry, you may not set me up as a strawman by changing what I said to what I "essentially" said. You don't have a leg to stand on.
< I later pointed out that Jones' statement also showed hostility towards organized religion. >
Possible but not likely. Requires corroborating evidence.
> Not true -- my comments on PT were generally on-topic. <
None of those seem to remain on any blogs. All that can be seen of your posts are the ravings of a madman.
> Just look at this thread -- you lousy trolls have completely ruined it. <
We have saved it. A dull topic followed by the usual proof that you didn't understand something has been turned into an interesting discussion drawing what is now approaching 100 posts. We have rescued this thread.
> As I said a zillion times already <
As we have said a zillion times already. Repeating something that is false will not make it true.
> I asserted that Jones essentially said that the "establishment clause" established the "true religion" of the founding fathers <
Another example of how you don't understand what your commenting on.
> (A true crank) would not have gotten all the attention that I have gotten. <
On the contrary. You are a true crank who (with my help) has gotten a lot of attention. Where else can we see someone throw lemon marangue pies, one after another, into his own face?
> What in the hell do you mean by "running a blog on your own equipment"? <
That seems fairly straightforward. He means running a blog on your own equipment. As of now, you are just taking advantage of Blogger's free service. You can't expect to call all of the shots.
> The problem is that relatively few of the many replies I have received here actually address the issues. I had the same problem on Panda's Thumb. <
The Panda's Thunmb threads seem to have kept on track except when you tried to hijack them.
< lemon marangue pies >
Hmm.
Should we fix the spelling here with two letters -- i.e., "meringue" (crazy French spelling) -- or more economically with just one -- i.e., "harangue"?
(Which seems to fit better anyway.)
> Should we fix the spelling here <
Show some mercy. I misspelled "where" a few posts back.
> "harangue" <
Yes, that's more like it!
john e jones iii said (Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:19:50 AM ) --
>>>>> I asserted that Jones essentially said that the "establishment clause" established the "true religion" of the founding fathers, and I stand by that assertion. >
Larry, you may not set me up as a strawman by changing what I said to what I "essentially" said. You don't have a leg to stand on.<<<<<
There is nothing wrong with accurate paraphrasing.
>>>>>>< I later pointed out that Jones' statement also showed hostility towards organized religion. >
Possible but not likely. Requires corroborating evidence.<<<<<<
The corroborating evidence is your Kitzmiller decision.
Judge Jones, show me anyone who shares your views on the establishment clause and the founding fathers' "true religion."
> There is nothing wrong with accurate paraphrasing. <
What does accurate paraphrasing have to do with what you have been doing?
> The corroborating evidence is your Kitzmiller decision. <
Only if misread.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/02/2006 04:47:05 PM ) --
>> >>>>>Remember, your hijinks at PT included completely derailing threads by starting completely unrelated arguments.<<<<< <<
>> Not true -- my comments on PT were generally on-topic. In contrast, your comments here are completely off-topic. Just look at this thread -- you lousy trolls have completely ruined it. I have already devoted a whole thread to debating the way I was treated by PT and other Internet forums. You should place your comments there, at http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/censorship-on-pandas-thumb-and-aol.html <<
You were the one who attempted to spin your Panda's Thumb problems into the latest issue of "I'm A Victim Weekly." I brought them up in response to you, so your claims that I'm derailing the thread are specious at best.
>> >>>>>As to me attacking you personally. Since when is exposing dishonesty a personal attack.<<<<< <<
>> As I said a zillion times already, my comments were blocked by PT before I broke any of the rules there. And Ed Brayton banned me because he didn't like my ideas. <<
In other words, your refutation is to repeat the falsehood. And you wonder why people at Panda's Thumb decided that you were a crank. Your basic pattern of argument here has not changed from your PT days: namely:
Larry: I say X is true.
Anyone else: But X is not true.
Larry: I say X is true, moron.
Get a new schtick, please, anyone above the age of 8 can see the problems with your supposed "arguments," only you seem to fail to recognize them.
>> >>>>And when they gave their interpretations of the articles, often based on the fact that they actually had backgrounds in the topics of the articles, you would ignore them and/or just republish the same argument again.<<<<< <<
>> I don't give a damn what their backgrounds are -- they still have to "show me." And I do not have to accept what they show me. And I don't ban people just because I don't accept their arguments. <<
Actually, that's not how it works. YOU were the one going into PT message threads and making assertions about points of law and science, among other things. When lawyers and scientist told you that you were misreading the articles you were quoting you would simply insist that they were wrong and then use the same article to make the same refuted argument later. Truth by Blatant Assertion and Truth by Innumerable Repetition are not valid arguments, and you should know that. For the curious, I recommend searching on Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org) for "Larry Fafarman" or any of his aliases (Andy H., etc.), to get a decent example of Larry's "argument" style. If you examine the site as a whole, you'll also notice the deep, dark secret that Larry is so desperate to keep hidden since it so handily defeats his attempts at playing the "victim" card. Namely, people who disagree with PT much more than he does have not been banned. People like DaveScot and Sal Cordova still post there when they feel like it, do their semi-regular hit and run, cause a bit of a stir, and leave again. So maybe there was something special about you that PT's administrators felt warranted banning you. Hmm, now what could that have been. Oh yeah I know, you broke the rules that they had in place (ref: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/pandas_thumb_co.html).
>> >>>>> When it was pointed out that Judge Jones wasn't saying what you said he was saying, you responded with: "That is not what he literally said -- of course Jones would not literally say something like that. I said that is what he essentially said."<<<<< <<
>> I asserted that Jones essentially said that the "establishment clause" established the "true religion" of the founding fathers, and I stand by that assertion. I later pointed out that Jones' statement also showed hostility towards organized religion. <<
You created a strawman and you know it. Judge Jones is, in fact saying that the Founding Fathers believed that True Religion was not something that could be handed down from on high, but, rather that True Religion is an individualistic thing best arrived at by using our powers of observation and our ability to reason. The is NOTHING in what he says that indicates that they intended to set-up ANY form of state religion, be it their religion or someone else's. The only controversy here is your unwillingness to actually allow Judge Jones' statements stand on their own merit, which I can only attribute to the disdain for the man that you've invested your energy in.
Oh, and quoting Dembski as a source is more telling of how desperate you are, than of any weakness in Judge Jones' speech.
>> >>>>>And then, to support that you refer to a post on Uncommon Descent (and considering you hate PT so much for what you say are it censorious policies, it's amusing to watch you quote one of the MOST censorious blogs on the planet without so much as a squeak about that).<<<<< <<
>> Uncommon Descent is at least candid about its practice of censorship -- PT is not. Also, in exchange for UD's tip that I could use anonymous proxies (e.g., hidemyass.com) to bypass PT's IP address ban, I promised that I would not publicly criticize UD -- I don't feel that I am breaking any confidentiality here because UD has already admitted to giving me this advice. I wonder why these anonymous proxies seem to be a big secret, anyway -- there are at least hundreds of them on the Internet, maybe more. The PT folks are really stupid for thinking that IP address banning actually works -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/pandas-thumb-sucks.html <<
First, it's amusing that you would admit to self-censoring in exchange for a tip that you could have simply looked up if you actually had any idea of what you were talking about, so much for your claims of hackerdom. But you actions seem more than a little whorish. Well, there go your claims of having ANY integrity whetsoever. So you've lost again, and in a big way.
Anonymous proxies are not a big secret, Larry. Anyone who's ever had to deal with spammers, zombie botnets and other scum knows all about them, as do some people who may have an actual legitimate need to do things anonymously. You have no legitimate need to use such a service, though, Larry. You broke the rules PT put in place and they no longer want anything to do with you. You want to use a proxies to get around your banishment because you have this childish need to make them listen to you. Well, guess what, the proxy lists are public and they can be used to deny access to the proxies as well, so be careful the games you try to play.
Of course, if I DO see you trying to post on PT in the future, I will have to bring up your little "business arrangement" with UD. Your credibility is already zero in most places. Care to see if it can go any lower?
>> >>>>>>Now, of course you know that once Godwin's Law is invoked the one who made the attempts at the Nazi reference LOSES THE DEBATE. Thank you so much for conceding.<<<<< <<
>> You mentioned Godwin's Law first, so that means that you lose. <<
What is it, Larry, are you just incapable of actually READING anything that says Law in the name? I brought up Godwin's Law because you fell afoul of it. You made the Nazi comparison. I pointed it out by mentioning Godwin's Law, which says that the one bringing the Nazi comparison into a debate has lost the debate. You made the Nazi comparison, you lost the debate. Sorry, "Whoever Smelt it Dealy It," doesn't work in the real world.
>> >>>>>When you're running a blog on your own equipment, then you might be able to salvage some credibility for yourself on when or whether comment threads should be kept open. You don't, though, so hush.<<<<< <<
>> What in the hell do you mean by "running a blog on your own equipment"? And what is this "hush" crap? <<
You see, Larry, and I'm going to explain this slowly you can understand it, blogs, and almost everything else on the Internet are run on things called "Servers," which are computers that somebody owns, maintains and pays for. Panda's Thumb is like that, it is hosted on one or more servers that store and provide the information that makes up the content on Panda's Thumb. Blogger is the same way. Now the site owners have to pay for a number of things (software updates, computer maintenance, the internet connection, etc.). They are responsible for keeping track of the resources on their server to make sure that the server is available all the time. As part of that responsibility, most site administrators set rules, called Terms of Use, which provide the guidelines for what is appropriate use of their resources. Server resources are not infinite, though they may seem nearly so until you get a large number of users, so sometimes you close message threads that are old or have seen little usage recently.
The people in charge of Panda's Thumb are, judging from recent posts they have made, actually in charge of the server. When it crashes or has a problem, THEY have to fix it. The Blogger staff likewise have among them at least one person responsible for the continued smooth running of their servers. Both groups are responsible for their equipment and their own sites.
You do none of these things, you don't host your own site, you are not responsible for ANYTHING that happens at Panda's Thumb or any other blog that you visit. You're not even responsible if something happens to your blog, here. If Blogger were to crash tomorrow, it would be nothing more than an inconvenience to you, you wouldn't (and apparently lack the skill) to do anything to fix it yourself. That would fall to Blogger's IT staff.
Computers are not toasters, Larry. And I can't tell you how tiring it is to hear people like you, who wouldn't know how to SETUP a server, much less provide maintenance for the server (think security updates, regular software fixes, monitoring to guard against hacker intrusion, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) telling me how easy my job is. I've set up many servers, file, web, email, you name it, and I know that it isn't quite as simple as "Click, Install, Forget." Resource allocation is a tricky thing to get right, especially when you start scaling the number of users upwards to the thousands, and I have nothing but respect for the staffs of these site that they can actually manage to keep a large, active site going with the minimum of fuss that they do. But here you come and tell them what they can and can't do and I have to say that it's so stupid that it's almost offensive that you would be so arrogant who actually DO something that their doing it wrong because you don't like their policies.
So, until you're running your own blog on your own equipment, and have therefore earned the right, through experience, of actually having an opinion on the matter, "hush."
>> >>>>I'm not obliged to address anything I am not directly responding. Nor am I in need of addressing statements that I feel have already been adequately addressed by others.<<<< <<
>> The problem is that relatively few of the many replies I have received here actually address the issues. I had the same problem on Panda's Thumb. <<
That's because, true to form for you, you simply ignore what you do not want to hear. You exhibited the same problem on Panda's Thumb.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/03/2006 07:49:49 PM ) --
>>>>>You were the one who attempted to spin your Panda's Thumb problems into the latest issue of "I'm A Victim Weekly." I brought them up in response to you, so your claims that I'm derailing the thread are specious at best.<<<<<
Wrong. Somebody else brought up ths subject and I responded, then you decided to chime in with your lousy two-cents worth. I don't try to derail my own threads.
>>>>>> As I said a zillion times already, my comments were blocked by PT before I broke any of the rules there. And Ed Brayton banned me because he didn't like my ideas. <<
In other words, your refutation is to repeat the falsehood.<<<<<<
What do you know, you stupid, feeble-minded cretin? I was the one who was banned, so I am the one who knows what happened (Kevin Vicklund filled me in on a few details I was unaware of).
>>>>When lawyers and scientist told you that you were misreading the articles you were quoting you would simply insist that they were wrong and then use the same article to make the same refuted argument later. <<<<<<
As I said, I don't give a shit what their credentials are -- they have their opinions and I have mine. That is what you Darwinists can't stand -- when other people think for themselves. And mostly I was just heckled -- often I didn't get a lot of counterarguments.
>>>>>People like DaveScot and Sal Cordova still post there when they feel like it, do their semi-regular hit and run, cause a bit of a stir, and leave again.<<<<<
DaveScot was banned too and has posted on PT under other names.
>>>>>>You created a strawman and you know it. Judge Jones is, in fact saying that the Founding Fathers believed that True Religion was not something that could be handed down from on high, but, rather that True Religion is an individualistic thing best arrived at by using our powers of observation and our ability to reason. The is NOTHING in what he says that indicates that they intended to set-up ANY form of state religion, be it their religion or someone else's.<<<<<<
Jones was the one who called it a "true religion" -- so he said that the founding fathers were trying to establish their own "true religion" as the state religion. I am not putting any words in his mouth.
>>>>>First, it's amusing that you would admit to self-censoring in exchange for a tip that you could have simply looked up if you actually had any idea of what you were talking about, so much for your claims of hackerdom.<<<<<
None of the websites I found that discussed IP addresses gave any tips on how to evade IP address bans. Eventually, however, I learned more, and I reached a point where I could give UD tips about what worked and what didn't.
>>>>>Anonymous proxies are not a big secret, Larry.<<<<<<
They were apparently a big secret to the folks at PT -- they obviously did not know that IP bans could be bypassed by these proxies. That is in addition to the other disadvantages of using IP address banning.
>>>>>> Anyone who's ever had to deal with spammers, zombie botnets and other scum knows all about them, as do some people who may have an actual legitimate need to do things anonymously.<<<<<
Who has a legitimate need to use a program with a name like "hidemyass.com" ?
>>>>>Of course, if I DO see you trying to post on PT in the future, I will have to bring up your little "business arrangement" with UD.<<<<<<
There was no little "business arrangement" -- not publicly criticizing UD was strictly my idea. Anyway, as I said, UD openly admits practicing censorship, so it is no secret.
>>>>>Well, guess what, the proxy lists are public and they can be used to deny access to the proxies as well, so be careful the games you try to play. <<<<<<
There is no way to deny access to a determined hacker, moron.
It was actually AOL that caused the whole problem, by connecting me through an AOL proxy with a fixed or nearly fixed IP address. The local IP address of my computer changes every time I dial up AOL.
>>>>>>you don't host your own site, you are not responsible for ANYTHING that happens at Panda's Thumb or any other blog that you visit. You're not even responsible if something happens to your blog, here. If Blogger were to crash tomorrow, it would be nothing more than an inconvenience to you, you wouldn't (and apparently lack the skill) to do anything to fix it yourself. That would fall to Blogger's IT staff.<<<<<<
How many bloggers do you think create their own blogs from scratch, you stupid moron? And how could I possibly maintain the blogger.com website?
>>>>> I've set up many servers, file, web, email, you name it, and I know that it isn't quite as simple as "Click, Install, Forget."<<<<<
So you want me to be impressed? Nothing you could say would impress me, moron. In addition to being a degreed and professionally registered mechanical engineer, I also have a certificate in computer science from an accredited community college. But that was many years ago, and I never learned blog programming, of course -- there was no such thing back then. And I presume that there are different blog programming languages.
If you are so smart, why don't you tell me where I can find coding for creating a list of the most recent comments posted on my blog?
If you think I am such a crackpot, why did you follow me here and post your spam? Why don't you just ignore me? Do you hold a grudge against me because you are jealous of the excellence of my posts?
Give up Larry, Rob Serrano is showing you to be the fool that we all know you to be.
> I was the one who was banned, so I am the one who knows what happened<
Now that is funny!
> In addition to being a degreed (sic) and professionally registered mechanical engineer <
You are not a registered mechanical engineer. You are an ex-registered mechanical engineer. After you lost your last job due to incompetence and were unable to find another, you couldn't even pay the renewal fee for your registration.
> I also have a certificate in computer science from an accredited community college. <
These are given for attendance at classes that cover the computer languages and systems of several decades ago. It is obvious that you no little about computers and nothing about programming.
> I never learned blog programming, of course -- there was no such thing back then. And I presume that there are different blog programming languages. <
You show your ignorance here.
> Do you hold a grudge against me because you are jealous of the excellence of my posts? <
Delusions of grandeur again. You think that your crap is "excellent".
>> >>>>>You were the one who attempted to spin your Panda's Thumb problems into the latest issue of "I'm A Victim Weekly." I brought them up in response to you, so your claims that I'm derailing the thread are specious at best.<<<<< <<
>> Wrong. Somebody else brought up ths subject and I responded, then you decided to chime in with your lousy two-cents worth. I don't try to derail my own threads. <<
And yet I was responding to you, not somebody else. I responded to your misstatements by correcting them.
>> >>>>>> As I said a zillion times already, my comments were blocked by PT before I broke any of the rules there. And Ed Brayton banned me because he didn't like my ideas. <<
In other words, your refutation is to repeat the falsehood.<<<<<< <<
>> What do you know, you stupid, feeble-minded cretin? I was the one who was banned, so I am the one who knows what happened (Kevin Vicklund filled me in on a few details I was unaware of). <<
Ooh, I am SO impressed that you know how to throw around insults. Yeah right. You're just bound and determined to prove that you've lost the argument, aren't you?
>> >>>>When lawyers and scientist told you that you were misreading the articles you were quoting you would simply insist that they were wrong and then use the same article to make the same refuted argument later. <<<<<< <<
>> As I said, I don't give a shit what their credentials are -- they have their opinions and I have mine. That is what you Darwinists can't stand -- when other people think for themselves. And mostly I was just heckled -- often I didn't get a lot of counterarguments. <<
And their opinion as actual practitioners of science or law actually have some weight. Your assertions coming as they did with support that most often refuted the claims you were making, did and do not. The problem is never people thinking for themselves, the problem is when people, such as yourself, make up entire beliefs based on nothing but hot air and wishful thinking and demand that your notions be given the same deference as scientific theories which have been tested over the course of 150+ years. Evolution has past the test of time, have your ideas?
>> >>>>>People like DaveScot and Sal Cordova still post there when they feel like it, do their semi-regular hit and run, cause a bit of a stir, and leave again.<<<<< <<
>> DaveScot was banned too and has posted on PT under other names. <<
Now let's see why he was banned. Oh, it was for threatening to hack the site ref: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/intelligent_des_16.html#comment-23044.
Hmm doesn't really sound like banning for dissenting opinion, now does it?
>> >>>>>>You created a strawman and you know it. Judge Jones is, in fact saying that the Founding Fathers believed that True Religion was not something that could be handed down from on high, but, rather that True Religion is an individualistic thing best arrived at by using our powers of observation and our ability to reason. The is NOTHING in what he says that indicates that they intended to set-up ANY form of state religion, be it their religion or someone else's.<<<<<< <<
>> Jones was the one who called it a "true religion" -- so he said that the founding fathers were trying to establish their own "true religion" as the state religion. I am not putting any words in his mouth. <<
Actually, you are putting a very important word in his mouth. He doesn't say anything about A true religion, he talks about their idea of true religion. There is a HUGE difference here, and one you seem to deliberately ignore. The former implies that their is a single true religion, like saying that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. The latter, and the version that Judge Jones actually said simply states qualities that true religion without implying any sort of single True Religion, which is totally in keeping with the statement that the Founding Fathers belief of religion as an individual, rather than a necessarily collective, entity. They wanted not for there to be a state religion of any sort, but for the state to be neutral and allow people to come to their own conclusions based on their own reasoning capabilities and their powers of observation.
>> >>>>>First, it's amusing that you would admit to self-censoring in exchange for a tip that you could have simply looked up if you actually had any idea of what you were talking about, so much for your claims of hackerdom.<<<<< <<
>> None of the websites I found that discussed IP addresses gave any tips on how to evade IP address bans. Eventually, however, I learned more, and I reached a point where I could give UD tips about what worked and what didn't. <<
So apparently, you didn't think to use Google. Rookie mistake, but not surprising.
>> >>>>>Anonymous proxies are not a big secret, Larry.<<<<<< <<
>> They were apparently a big secret to the folks at PT -- they obviously did not know that IP bans could be bypassed by these proxies. That is in addition to the other disadvantages of using IP address banning. <<
Actually, for the vast majority of users, those without HUGE chips on their shoulders, IP address bans are simple and quite effective. For those others solutions like Real-time Block Lists can be quite effective in rooting out open proxies. Open proxies can also be sniffed out using the same tools that the sites you went to use (they normally use scripts that scan blocks of IP for open proxies, no big mental feat). Not to mention the legal trouble you can get into since a number of the proxies are not truly legitimate open proxies, they are misconfigured servers on corporate networks which, if you attempt to run your traffic through, can open you up to legal charges.
Where you got the idea that this is some major new thing, is beyond me. Block any incoming traffic from known open proxies and you're little scheme goes up in smoke again. Block subnets that are known to be friendly to proxies and you've completely up the creek.
Open proxies are nothing new. They have been around since the inception of the internet, back in the ARPANET days. Back then the nodes could be trusted so machines would relay packets back and forth. This was especially true of e-mail. With the advent of the wider Internet, open proxies have become more of a nuisance than a feature and so there are fewer of them these days because people like you think it's "fun" to abuse the system.
And of course, I haven't even mentioned the fun if the proxy you happen to try to go through is part of a zombie botnet, in which case you run the risk of joining the botnet. The bottom line is, you know nothing about the services you're talking about and you know nothing about the implications and possible ramifications of using them. You know nothing of the inclinations of the people using running these sites except that they may provide you with a way of defeating the dreaded "IP address ban." You are being short-sited and foolish all for the sake of "bothering" the readership of sites you dislike. You are, in short, why America Online is one of the most reviled ISPs in the IT world. You demonstrate all of the stereotypical traits that have tarred AOL users since AOL first went online, and you think you should get some sort of prize for that.
>> >>>>>> Anyone who's ever had to deal with spammers, zombie botnets and other scum knows all about them, as do some people who may have an actual legitimate need to do things anonymously.<<<<< <<
>> Who has a legitimate need to use a program with a name like "hidemyass.com" ? <<
So, you're basically admiting that you, yourself have no legitimate use for using it. Maybe there's hope for you, yet. As to what would be possibly legitimate uses: how about whistleblowers, dissidents living in oppressive regimes, anyone who for whatever reason face punishment for saying things someone else doesn't want them to. There are, believe it or not, Larry, people for whom freedom of speech is not a guarantee, it is something they must take. They face actual real-world consequences if they speak, what do you face that you feel the need to use these services? Nothing. Not a damned thing. The only consequence you've faced is not being able to post at two site. Oh, no, it is a catastrophe for humanity, Larry's banned from speaking here, but look he's speaking here, and still without having to pay a dime, instead. Your crisis is naught but a crisis of your own ego. Like a child crying in a restaurant, when you are ignored and told to go play outside scream all the louder in the hopes that they will no longer be able to shuffle you off and pay attention to you.
So, while some people actually have legitimate uses for anonymizers, you don't. You're just throwing a temper tantrum because people won't just let you have your way. How small does that make you?
>> >>>>>Of course, if I DO see you trying to post on PT in the future, I will have to bring up your little "business arrangement" with UD.<<<<<< <<
>> There was no little "business arrangement" -- not publicly criticizing UD was strictly my idea. Anyway, as I said, UD openly admits practicing censorship, so it is no secret. <<
That's not what you said before:
"Also, in exchange for UD's tip that I could use anonymous proxies (e.g., hidemyass.com) to bypass PT's IP address ban, I promised that I would not publicly criticize UD..."
Sounds like quid pro quo to hear you tell it in the first place: THEY give you the "anonymous proxies" tip in exchange for YOUR promise not to publicly criticize UD. Much like a prostitute takes money in exchange for sexual favors. And you sold yourself cheap because that information is not hard to find.
>> >>>>>Well, guess what, the proxy lists are public and they can be used to deny access to the proxies as well, so be careful the games you try to play. <<<<<< <<
>> There is no way to deny access to a determined hacker, moron. <<
You, sir, are no hacker. You are a putz (notice that I'm sticking with the rule of insulting only when insulted) who thinks having some (very) limited googling skills translates into being a hacker. Real hackers are a creative lot, by and large, they WRITE the scripts that hunt down the proxies you're so proud of. They have the knowledge of how these things work that you do not. They do the work and discover the limits to which things can be pushed. All you do is leech of their work and try to associate yourself with them.
And the point still stands, proxy list are public and can be used to deny access to them as well. Many of these proxies are deliberately left open, they are misconfigured by inexperienced IT staff.
>> It was actually AOL that caused the whole problem, by connecting me through an AOL proxy with a fixed or nearly fixed IP address. The local IP address of my computer changes every time I dial up AOL. <<
Actually, AOL caused no problem that I can see. You're behavior caused the problem. AOL didn't get you banned, your actions got you banned. Don't try to blame them for what is ultimately YOUR OWN FAULT.
>> >>>>>>you don't host your own site, you are not responsible for ANYTHING that happens at Panda's Thumb or any other blog that you visit. You're not even responsible if something happens to your blog, here. If Blogger were to crash tomorrow, it would be nothing more than an inconvenience to you, you wouldn't (and apparently lack the skill) to do anything to fix it yourself. That would fall to Blogger's IT staff.<<<<<< <<
>> How many bloggers do you think create their own blogs from scratch, you stupid moron? And how could I possibly maintain the blogger.com website? <<
The point just keeps ZIPPING past you, doesn't it? How many other bloggers are running around handing out dictates for how other bloggers should behave. The list so far contains only you. The point is, as you are not responsible for any site, you really have no business telling others what to do. You have ZERO accountability, the maintainers of Panda's Thumb are accountable for everything that happens there. And yet, you are so presumptuous as to assume that what YOU want must be important to them? Not a chance.
>> >>>>> I've set up many servers, file, web, email, you name it, and I know that it isn't quite as simple as "Click, Install, Forget."<<<<< <<
>> So you want me to be impressed? Nothing you could say would impress me, moron. In addition to being a degreed and professionally registered mechanical engineer, I also have a certificate in computer science from an accredited community college. But that was many years ago, and I never learned blog programming, of course -- there was no such thing back then. And I presume that there are different blog programming languages. <<
I have a degree in Computer Science and I have been working with computers for over 20 years. But I've no need to impress you. The fact is that I actually DO this stuff for a living, while you sit around Archie Bunkering and pretending you have knowledge that you do not possess. While I'm setting up, securing, and maintaining Windows and Linux Servers and Workstations, you're pretending that you're a hacker. While I'm putting together and maintaining websites, you're demanding that Panda's Thumb treat you like royalty. While I keep a company's e-mail server safe from attack and block 95% or all incoming spam and 100% of all incoming viruses/worms/trojans before anyone sees the offending messages you try to bluster me into silence. While I actually write code to automate a number of tedious tasks, to teach others, and to just generally get things done, you wave a CS Certificate it me, like that's supposed to me diddly to me. When you actually DO something with computers besides just use them, you might have something to say on the topic. Until then, you're a poseur, and a bad one at that.
>> If you are so smart, why don't you tell me where I can find coding for creating a list of the most recent comments posted on my blog? <<
Intelligence being the measure, here, why in the Hell would an intelligent person, such as myself, lift one finger to help you?
>> If you think I am such a crackpot, why did you follow me here and post your spam? Why don't you just ignore me? Do you hold a grudge against me because you are jealous of the excellence of my posts? <<
I've not said that you were a crackpot, I've called you a twit and a putz, so far, and you've been so deliciously deserving of it each time.
You need to read the definition of spam. It most certainly does not include single postings and/or e-mails. Go to http://www.spamhaus.org and see for yourself. Never try to throw out terms like spam to people who have worked setting up and maintaining e-mail servers unless you KNOW what you're talking about, which you do NOT.
Normally, people like you on very low on my radar. But when I see people make blatantly false statements, I feel it is my duty to correct the falsehood, lest someone actually be fooled into believing it.
So far the score on this thread is Rob Serrano 14, Larry Fafarman 0. I propose tht we give Rob the cup in perpetuity.
Rob Serrano says...
> your refutation is to repeat the falsehood. And you wonder why people at Panda's Thumb decided that you were a crank. Your basic pattern of argument here has not changed from your PT days: namely:
Larry: I say X is true.
Anyone else: But X is not true.
Larry: I say X is true, moron. <
This can best be seen with two of Larry's mantras:
"I was banned from PT without reason"
"This is not my real brother Dave"
Larry is continuing to put on more grease paint.
> I also have a certificate in computer science from an accredited community college. <
Larry took a series of classes in beginning Pascal and MASM 1.0. The computer workshop consisted of a collection of 8088 workstations connected to a 286 server. Most of the students' watches had more computing power at the time but it was adequate for what they were doing.
I asked him why he was wasting his time with this drivel. He said that he wanted the certificate that they gave for completion of a prescribed set of classes. I suggested that he could make up a certificate of equal value using MS Word.
The only program that I know of Larry writing was a laughably primitive version of "Life". He believed that it was a work of brilliance and would change the world of programming.
Much of Larry's life has been like this. He will make an insignificant change in something and then claim to have invented a wheel. The only reason that people are not beating a path to his door is jealosy over his success.
Larry believes that typing a message on Notepad is programming!
Rob Serrano said ( 6/04/2006 01:23:21 AM ) --
>>>>>And yet I was responding to you, not somebody else. I responded to your misstatements by correcting them.<<<<<
And contributed to messing up the thread.
>>>>>And their opinion as actual practitioners of science or law actually have some weight. <<<<<
Yeah -- as much weight as the ermperor's new clothes.
>>>>>Actually, you are putting a very important word in his mouth. He doesn't say anything about A true religion, he talks about their idea of true religion. There is a HUGE difference here, and one you seem to deliberately ignore. The former implies that their is a single true religion, like saying that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. The latter, and the version that Judge Jones actually said simply states qualities that true religion without implying any sort of single True Religion, which is totally in keeping with the statement that the Founding Fathers belief of religion as an individual, rather than a necessarily collective, entity. They wanted not for there to be a state religion of any sort, but for the state to be neutral and allow people to come to their own conclusions based on their own reasoning capabilities and their powers of observation. <<<<<<
Who in the hell are you to try to clarify what Judge Jones said? How do you know what he really thinks or what he wants others to believe that he really thinks? How can there by more than one "single true religion" ? Why is this "true religion" necessarily an independent belief of an individual rather than a collective belief? Does Judge Jones statement not show hostility towards organized religion?
Even if Judge Jones studied the beliefs of a few of the delegates to the constitutional convention, how could he speak for the beliefs of all the delegates? Why did Judge Jones completely ignore the really obvious reasons for the establishment clause -- e.g., to prevent theocracies and help protect the free exercise of religion -- and instead gave a reason that is just a figment of his imagination?
Anyway, who cares that much what the founding fathers thought? If we were to follow all the principles of the founding fathers, we would, for example, have citizenship only for white males and voting rights only for rich ones. As Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas said in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, "I believe this Government was made on the white basis. ("Good.") I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ("Good for you." "Douglas forever.")" So much for this founding-father crap.
>>>>>So apparently, you didn't think to use Google. <<<<<
I never said that I did not use Google, moron. But not everything can be found with Google. For example, I tried to find kiddie porn by means of Google and came up empty-handed.
>>>>>Actually, for the vast majority of users, those without HUGE chips on their shoulders, IP address bans are simple and quite effective.<<<<<
When you are arbitrarily censored, you are going to have a HUGE chip on your shoulder. And no, IP address bans are not effective -- they are not effective against people with variable IP addresses, and these bans can block people that you do not intend to block. You are surprisingly ignorant for someone who works with computers.
And I am surprised that more people don't know about anonymous proxies.
>>>>>For those others solutions like Real-time Block Lists can be quite effective in rooting out open proxies. Open proxies can also be sniffed out using the same tools that the sites you went to use (they normally use scripts that scan blocks of IP for open proxies, no big mental feat).<<<<<
Anonymous proxy programs are quite effective at electronic warfare -- they even brazenly use titles that make no attempt to conceal their purpose, e.g., hidemyass.com and proxyspy.com.
>>>>>Not to mention the legal trouble you can get into since a number of the proxies are not truly legitimate open proxies, they are misconfigured servers on corporate networks which, if you attempt to run your traffic through, can open you up to legal charges. <<<<<
You can't get into legal trouble for openly accessing a website.
>>>>>Where you got the idea that this is some major new thing, is beyond me. Block any incoming traffic from known open proxies and you're little scheme goes up in smoke again. Block subnets that are known to be friendly to proxies and you've completely up the creek.
<<<<<<
As I said, anonymous proxies are very effective at electronic warfare. They have about 10 different options to help ensure anonymity, e.g., data encoding, blocking cookies, and removing scripts.
<<<<<<>> Who has a legitimate need to use a program with a name like "hidemyass.com" ? <<
So, you're basically admiting that you, yourself have no legitimate use for using it. Maybe there's hope for you, yet. As to what would be possibly legitimate uses: how about whistleblowers, dissidents living in oppressive regimes, anyone who for whatever reason face punishment for saying things someone else doesn't want them to. <<<<<<
To the oppressive regime and the target of the whistleblower, those uses are not legitimate. It all depends on your viewpoint.
If these proxies were intended to provide secure communications, they would not have obvious names like hidemyass, unblockthis, and proxyspy. And these proxies cannot prevent such things as wiretapping.
>>>>And of course, I haven't even mentioned the fun if the proxy you happen to try to go through is part of a zombie botnet, in which case you run the risk of joining the botnet. <<<<<
All Internet users are threatened with things like viruses and identity theft -- you cannot protect yourself just by avoiding anonymous proxies.
>>>>>Sounds like quid pro quo to hear you tell it in the first place: THEY give you the "anonymous proxies" tip in exchange for YOUR promise not to publicly criticize UD.<<<<<
As I said, there was no "deal." They could not enforce such a deal, anyway.
>>>>open proxies have become more of a nuisance than a feature and so there are fewer of them these days because people like you think it's "fun" to abuse the system.<<<<
There are "fewer" of them? LOL There are hundreds if not thousands. And I did not "abuse" the system for "fun" -- I "abused" the system because I had to -- it was the only way to get around PT's ban.
>>>>> Like a child crying in a restaurant, when you are ignored and told to go play outside scream all the louder in the hopes that they will no longer be able to shuffle you off and pay attention to you.<<<<<<
Like Colin, you have a contempt for children -- but it was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
>>>>>How many other bloggers are running around handing out dictates for how other bloggers should behave.<<<<<
I think it is bad for any blog to practice arbitrary censorship, but arbitrary censorship is especially bad when, as in the case of Panda's Thumb, (1) the blog denies it and (2) the blog proudly displays a web award (the Scientific American magazine award that PT received). And arbitrary censorship undermines one of the great advantages of the Internet -- a great potential enhancement of the free exchange of ideas. I am considering starting an organization of bloggers who are pledged to no-censorship.
>>>>>I have a degree in Computer Science and I have been working with computers for over 20 years.<<<<<
Why are you telling me all this? Do you want me to hire you?
Pretty soon your job will be moved to India where it will be performed by somebody getting one-tenth of the pay that you are getting.
<<<<<>> If you are so smart, why don't you tell me where I can find coding for creating a list of the most recent comments posted on my blog? <<
Intelligence being the measure, here, why in the Hell would an intelligent person, such as myself, lift one finger to help you?>>>>>>
Just to show that you are not just a bag of hot air but really know something about computers.
>>>>>>You need to read the definition of spam. It most certainly does not include single postings and/or e-mails.<<<<<<
It can be a general term referring to unsolicited or undesired messages -- a description which fits your posts perfectly. And Wikipedia even defines a category of spam called "forum spam": "Forum Spam is the posting of unneeded and abusive messages on a forum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam
Why don't you look up "hacker," a term that you have freely used here, and you will find that it is generally not supposed to mean someone who breaks into computer systems -- the term for that is supposed to be "cracker." The use of the word "hacker" in that sense is supposed to be pejorative.
>>>>>Nrmally, people like you on very low on my radar. But when I see people make blatantly false statements, I feel it is my duty to correct the falsehood, lest someone actually be fooled into believing it.<<<<<<
And how would someone be fooled into believing it? Because my arguments are very persuasive, right? And you have done almost nothing here to try to counter my arguments -- just a futile attempt to counter my arguments about Judge Jones' foolish statements about the founding fathers' "true religion."
Rob, all I can say is, you must really think I am the GREATEST if you go to this much trouble to try to discredit me. You must really think that I am absolutely SUPER-DUPER --- the guy who must be stopped before he destroys the whole fields of science,
law, and religion as you see them. There is no other way to explain it. I am really flattered. Honest.
I think I would second colin's "post of the week" nomination (a while back).
< Who in the hell are you to try to clarify what Judge Jones said? How do you know what he really thinks or what he wants others to believe that he really thinks? >
What I really think of course remains private. However, for what I "want others to think" I would suggest that the best source is what I actually said.
< Pretty soon your job will be moved to India where it will be performed by somebody getting one-tenth of the pay that you are getting. >
Has Palmisano's job been outsourced yet?
>> >>>>>And yet I was responding to you, not somebody else. I responded to your misstatements by correcting them.<<<<< <<
>> And contributed to messing up the thread. <<
You can always stop responding. Since I'm responding to you, you really can't claim I'm derailing anything now, can you?
>> >>>>>And their opinion as actual practitioners of science or law actually have some weight. <<<<< <<
>> Yeah -- as much weight as the ermperor's new clothes. <<
Which, even if it were true, is significantly weightier than what you have on.
>> >>>>>Actually, you are putting a very important word in his mouth. He doesn't say anything about A true religion, he talks about their idea of true religion. There is a HUGE difference here, and one you seem to deliberately ignore. The former implies that their is a single true religion, like saying that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. The latter, and the version that Judge Jones actually said simply states qualities that true religion without implying any sort of single True Religion, which is totally in keeping with the statement that the Founding Fathers belief of religion as an individual, rather than a necessarily collective, entity. They wanted not for there to be a state religion of any sort, but for the state to be neutral and allow people to come to their own conclusions based on their own reasoning capabilities and their powers of observation. <<<<<< <<
>> Who in the hell are you to try to clarify what Judge Jones said? How do you know what he really thinks or what he wants others to believe that he really thinks? How can there by more than one "single true religion" ? Why is this "true religion" necessarily an independent belief of an individual rather than a collective belief? Does Judge Jones statement not show hostility towards organized religion? <<
I am someone who actually READ the quote. Something that you, in your all-encompassing hatred of all things Judge Jones, you failed to do. All the rotten things you keep insisting that Judge Jones "meant" by what he said are nothing more than assertions on your part, backed by nothing more than your own arrogance. Given the weight that you place on the musings of the likes of Dembski and the herd of sycophants over at Uncommon Descent, this is not surprising.
>> Even if Judge Jones studied the beliefs of a few of the delegates to the constitutional convention, how could he speak for the beliefs of all the delegates? Why did Judge Jones completely ignore the really obvious reasons for the establishment clause -- e.g., to prevent theocracies and help protect the free exercise of religion -- and instead gave a reason that is just a figment of his imagination? <<
First of all, I'm sure that, as someone who has passed the BAR exam and who presumably spent several years in law school, I'd wager that Judge Jones understanding of the legal history of this country is pretty good. The rest of your statement isn't even capable of passing the laugh test since what you say he ignored is directly present within the quote you posted of that he said. Again, what is it with and your difficulty with reading comprehension? He said that the Founding Fathers did NOT believe that religion was properly something that was handed down from on high (you know, the state-sanctioned religion thing), but rather was best left to individuals to arrive at using their powers of reason and observation. Only someone with a stupid vendetta against the man could POSSIBLY misread what he is saying.
>> Anyway, who cares that much what the founding fathers thought? If we were to follow all the principles of the founding fathers, we would, for example, have citizenship only for white males and voting rights only for rich ones. As Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas said in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, "I believe this Government was made on the white basis. ("Good.") I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ("Good for you." "Douglas forever.")" So much for this founding-father crap. <<
And your point would be what, exactly? That, because some of the Founding Fathers held beliefs that we now consider to be archaic, if not just plain wrong, that we should throw away everything that they said, whether it was correct or not? That's one of the more idiotic propositions you've made. Face it, the Founding Fathers were a product of their time but were also, as a group, amazingly forward-thinking. They managed to put together a document (the US Constitution) that has survived happenings that have torn some nations apart. Realizing that attitudes and opinions change, they allowed for the document to be changed without it breaking completely. In doing so, they had to make compromises (the Bill of Rights was thought to be unneeded by some delegates because many of them felt that the rights ennumerated were just understood), but the end result has been remarkably successful. So, given the comparative track records of the Founding Fathers, who did amazing things and counted among their number some amazing thinkers, philosophers and statesmen, but may have held some of the prevailing notions of the time in which they lived, and you, who have fairly little to your credit except for your arrogance, it's no mean feat to determine whose thoughts are worthy of being discarded.
>> >>>>>So apparently, you didn't think to use Google. <<<<< <<
>> I never said that I did not use Google, moron. But not everything can be found with Google. For example, I tried to find kiddie porn by means of Google and came up empty-handed. <<
This is where I start wondering how frigging stupid you can be, bringing such disgusting topics into the conversation. Or are you just another faux-creature, trying to make Larry look even sillier than he actually is?
>> >>>>>Actually, for the vast majority of users, those without HUGE chips on their shoulders, IP address bans are simple and quite effective.<<<<< <<
>> When you are arbitrarily censored, you are going to have a HUGE chip on your shoulder. And no, IP address bans are not effective -- they are not effective against people with variable IP addresses, and these bans can block people that you do not intend to block. You are surprisingly ignorant for someone who works with computers. <<
First, you were not arbitrarily banned. You were banned because your behavior violated their clearly stated rules. Second, considering how ineffective you claim IP blocking is, it basically stopped you. You had to run to an anonymizer to try to get around the block. Dynamic IP addresses are not truly immune from IP addressing blocking, a troublesome ISP can be blocked completely by blocking its subnets blocking by IP does require more resources, which is why it's a last resort in most cases, but that's one of the tradeoffs you wouldn't know anything about. This is also why it wasn't the first step that was taken with you.
I use IP addresses to block incoming e-mail all the time. I simply use a blocklist that tracks open proxies, relays and known spammers and voila, scum be gone.
>> And I am surprised that more people don't know about anonymous proxies. <<
You keep saying that like you've discovered one of the great secrets of the universe. Proxies have been around for YEARS. The reason most people don't use them is because most people have better things to waste their time on. Even the dynamic IP addresses handed out by dialup ISPs are not necessarily as random as you may want to think, since they are often allocated by region
>> >>>>>For those others solutions like Real-time Block Lists can be quite effective in rooting out open proxies. Open proxies can also be sniffed out using the same tools that the sites you went to use (they normally use scripts that scan blocks of IP for open proxies, no big mental feat).<<<<< <<
>> Anonymous proxy programs are quite effective at electronic warfare -- they even brazenly use titles that make no attempt to conceal their purpose, e.g., hidemyass.com and proxyspy.com. <<
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you, Larry. That's why you keep trying to use buzzwords like "electronic warfare" into the conversation. hidemyass.com contains a public list of proxy servers, and they have two proxy servers, accounting for 16 IP addresses, of their own. The public list is public, so anyone wishing to block access from these addresses can do so without much trouble. Anonymous proxies are designed to protect privacy, not to allow overgrown children to go where they are not welcome.
>> >>>>>Not to mention the legal trouble you can get into since a number of the proxies are not truly legitimate open proxies, they are misconfigured servers on corporate networks which, if you attempt to run your traffic through, can open you up to legal charges. <<<<< <<
>> You can't get into legal trouble for openly accessing a website. <<
You can get into trouble for using a computer without its owner's permission. Some of the proxies on the list are not deliberately open proxies.
>> >>>>>Where you got the idea that this is some major new thing, is beyond me. Block any incoming traffic from known open proxies and you're little scheme goes up in smoke again. Block subnets that are known to be friendly to proxies and you've completely up the creek.
<<<<<< <<
>> As I said, anonymous proxies are very effective at electronic warfare. They have about 10 different options to help ensure anonymity, e.g., data encoding, blocking cookies, and removing scripts. <<
And as I said, you're just spouting off catchphrases that you really have no concept of. Data encoding, usually meant to be the obfuscation of e-mail addresses so spammers can't get them is a valuable tool for people wishing to prevent ending up on spam lists. Cookie blocking can be performed through any web browser as can disabling client-side scripts, and both are very useful options for protecting privacy. None of them can force me to accept requests from what I deem to be an open proxy. If I refuse connections from those sites, I effectively shut them down as far as my site is concerned.
>> <<<<<<>> Who has a legitimate need to use a program with a name like "hidemyass.com" ? <<
So, you're basically admiting that you, yourself have no legitimate use for using it. Maybe there's hope for you, yet. As to what would be possibly legitimate uses: how about whistleblowers, dissidents living in oppressive regimes, anyone who for whatever reason face punishment for saying things someone else doesn't want them to. <<<<<< <<
>> To the oppressive regime and the target of the whistleblower, those uses are not legitimate. It all depends on your viewpoint. <<
Completely irrelevant to the point that was being made, which was what legitimate uses these sites had. Although the fact that, when it comes to it you will take the side of oppressive regimes if it's convenient, is quite telling.
>> If these proxies were intended to provide secure communications, they would not have obvious names like hidemyass, unblockthis, and proxyspy. And these proxies cannot prevent such things as wiretapping. <<
First, how did you get from anonymous to secure? Security I get by hiding the message (encryption, etc.). Anonymity I get by making it hard for anyone to figure out that I sent the message. The two concepts are related to one another but are far from being the same thing.
As for wiretapping, so what? If you are always being watched, security is pretty much moot, but if you know what you're doing, you can get by. First, you learn how to hide the messages you send so that they don't trigger any alarms themselves. Then you use the anonymous proxy so that they don't know that you're sending messages to thisgovernmentsucks.org. In two easy steps you've already greatly reduced your chances of getting caught.
The proxy list hosted on hidemyass consists of proxies that do not belong to hidemyass, so hidemyass isn't going to be showing up as your destination. And even if you are going through one of their 2 proxy servers, it still won't show up. The proxies themselves will be listed by IP address since, in all likelihood, even your DNS requests will go through the proxy.
>> >>>>And of course, I haven't even mentioned the fun if the proxy you happen to try to go through is part of a zombie botnet, in which case you run the risk of joining the botnet. <<<<< <<
>> All Internet users are threatened with things like viruses and identity theft -- you cannot protect yourself just by avoiding anonymous proxies. <<
You also cannot protect yourself from brain damage just by avoiding beating yourself in the head with a baseball bat. The point is that all it takes is a modicum of caution and intelligence to avoid becoming infected with viruses. You demonstrate neither of these traits by running all your internet traffic through a host you know nothing about, all in the hopes of bothering people who DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU. As for identity theft, if you're running around giving your personal information to site like these, you clearly don't even have your own best interests at heart.
>> >>>>>Sounds like quid pro quo to hear you tell it in the first place: THEY give you the "anonymous proxies" tip in exchange for YOUR promise not to publicly criticize UD.<<<<< <<
>> As I said, there was no "deal." They could not enforce such a deal, anyway. <<
Who said anything about enforcement? I said you VOLUNTARILY gave them your promise of silence in exchange for a tip of only marginal worth.
>> >>>>open proxies have become more of a nuisance than a feature and so there are fewer of them these days because people like you think it's "fun" to abuse the system.<<<< <<
>> There are "fewer" of them? LOL There are hundreds if not thousands. And I did not "abuse" the system for "fun" -- I "abused" the system because I had to -- it was the only way to get around PT's ban. <<
No, you abused the system because you weren't getting your way. There is not critical "need" for you to post at Panda's Thumb. You just wanted to and when that was denied you, you threw a temper tantrum.
>> >>>>> Like a child crying in a restaurant, when you are ignored and told to go play outside scream all the louder in the hopes that they will no longer be able to shuffle you off and pay attention to you.<<<<<< <<
>> Like Colin, you have a contempt for children -- but it was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. <<
Nope, no "contempt" for children. And in your case, the emperor was, indeed, fully clothed. Your child just likes to play "made you look."
>> >>>>>How many other bloggers are running around handing out dictates for how other bloggers should behave.<<<<< <<
>> I think it is bad for any blog to practice arbitrary censorship, but arbitrary censorship is especially bad when, as in the case of Panda's Thumb, (1) the blog denies it and (2) the blog proudly displays a web award (the Scientific American magazine award that PT received). And arbitrary censorship undermines one of the great advantages of the Internet -- a great potential enhancement of the free exchange of ideas. I am considering starting an organization of bloggers who are pledged to no-censorship. <<
First, as has already explained in great detail, your banishment from Panda's Thumb was hardly arbitrary. You repeatedly violated their rules. End of discussion. Having seen your arguments, I can safely say that you are not interested in the "free exchange" of ideas. You are, instead far more interested in your ability spout your ideas and then ignore others' challenges to your ideas. You want everything to be about you and when you don't get it you scream that you're being oppressed.
If you want to be able to just spout and run without the possibility of being banned, I suggest Usenet. Just be warned that they get rowdy there.
As for your proposed organization, more power to you, but I would give it about a week before your odious personality traits drive most people out.
>> >>>>>I have a degree in Computer Science and I have been working with computers for over 20 years.<<<<< <<
>> Why are you telling me all this? Do you want me to hire you? <<
Why would I want to work for someone with no scruples?
>> Pretty soon your job will be moved to India where it will be performed by somebody getting one-tenth of the pay that you are getting. <<
Is that what happened to you? But seriously, no because I actually keep up on my skills.
>> <<<<<>> If you are so smart, why don't you tell me where I can find coding for creating a list of the most recent comments posted on my blog? <<
Intelligence being the measure, here, why in the Hell would an intelligent person, such as myself, lift one finger to help you?>>>>>> <<
>> Just to show that you are not just a bag of hot air but really know something about computers. <<
Oooh, I am just SO impressed. Tell you what, pay me the going rate for consulting ($40.00/hr) and you may have something. I don't give free advice to people like you.
>> >>>>>>You need to read the definition of spam. It most certainly does not include single postings and/or e-mails.<<<<<< <<
>> It can be a general term referring to unsolicited or undesired messages -- a description which fits your posts perfectly. And Wikipedia even defines a category of spam called "forum spam": "Forum Spam is the posting of unneeded and abusive messages on a forum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam <<
I would suggest you actually read the wikipedia entry. I haven't been abusive in any way. YOU have been the one who hurls insults left and right. I have merely responded to them when appropriate. Spam is bulk and unsolicited. I am not sending in bulk and this blog is solicitation. God, when ignorant people, such as yourself, get a (very) little bit of knowledge...
>> Why don't you look up "hacker," a term that you have freely used here, and you will find that it is generally not supposed to mean someone who breaks into computer systems -- the term for that is supposed to be "cracker." The use of the word "hacker" in that sense is supposed to be pejorative. <<
Actually, oh yee of the extremely short attention span, YOU were the one who started bandying about the term hacker. Let us replay the exchange where they came up and what was actually said about them:
Larry: "There is no way to deny access to a determined hacker, moron."
Me: "You, sir, are no hacker. You are a putz (notice that I'm sticking with the rule of insulting only when insulted) who thinks having some (very) limited googling skills translates into being a hacker. Real hackers are a creative lot, by and large, they WRITE the scripts that hunt down the proxies you're so proud of. They have the knowledge of how these things work that you do not. They do the work and discover the limits to which things can be pushed. All you do is leech of their work and try to associate yourself with them."
Now, WHO is using the term "hacker" in the perjorative sense of "someone who breaks into computer systems?" That, sir, would be you.
>> >>>>>Nrmally, people like you on very low on my radar. But when I see people make blatantly false statements, I feel it is my duty to correct the falsehood, lest someone actually be fooled into believing it.<<<<<< <<
>> And how would someone be fooled into believing it? Because my arguments are very persuasive, right? And you have done almost nothing here to try to counter my arguments -- just a futile attempt to counter my arguments about Judge Jones' foolish statements about the founding fathers' "true religion." <<
History has shown us that there is a segment of the population who will insist on believing even the most obvious of lies from even the most terrible of liars. I'm just here to set the record straight when you lie. When you first misstated what Judge Jones said, I might have forgiven it. But since you have shown, repeatedly you utter disregard for the truth in the matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you choose to lie about him because your lie is the cornerstone of your whole "argument."
>> Rob, all I can say is, you must really think I am the GREATEST if you go to this much trouble to try to discredit me. You must really think that I am absolutely SUPER-DUPER --- the guy who must be stopped before he destroys the whole fields of science,
law, and religion as you see them. There is no other way to explain it. I am really flattered. Honest. <<
Go ahead and be flattered all you want. You saying you're flattered isn't going to make me stop commenting because, quite frankly, I'm not posting for you, I'm posting to make sure that the record is kept straight. If you would stop lying, I might stop posting, but then we'd have to deal with the name-calling and all of your other "charming" little personality traits.
> I think I would second colin's "post of the week" nomination (a while back). <
I missed it. I thought that I was the only one making such nominations. Well the more the merrier.
Let's make some criteria for selection and form a committee.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/04/2006 05:43:25 PM ) --
>>>>>You can always stop responding. Since I'm responding to you, you really can't claim I'm derailing anything now, can you?<<<<
I am the one under pressure to respond because I am the one who is being attacked by the comments -- not you. You just took it upon yourself to butt in. A lot of blogs simply delete comments that are critical of the blog or the bloggers. Just try criticizing Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced "Velsberry") on Panda's Thumb and see how far you get.
>>>>>I am someone who actually READ the quote. Something that you, in your all-encompassing hatred of all things Judge Jones, you failed to do.<<<<<
I interpreted Jones' statements literally -- you did not.
I challenge you to find one authority on the Internet that supports Jones' views on the founding fathers' religious beliefs or the establishment clause.
>>>>>>First of all, I'm sure that, as someone who has passed the BAR exam and who presumably spent several years in law school, I'd wager that Judge Jones understanding of the legal history of this country is pretty good. <<<<<
In his commencement speech, Jones said that his above "precepts and beliefs" about the founding fathers and the establishment clause were acquired not in law school but in his undergraduate days at Dickinson College -- "As I hope that you can see, these precepts and beliefs, grounded in my liberal arts education, guide me each day as a federal trial judge." Also, he said earlier in his speech, "One might be tempted to assume that I received all of the tools necessary to understand the complex expert testimony and determine the facts solely through my law school education. If so, they would be incorrect. In fact, it was my liberal arts education, achieved right here at Dickinson College that provided me with the best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case." -- from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html
Of course, Judge Jones' general knowledge of the law is far greater than mine, but a person can quickly become an expert in a narrow area of the law just by intensive study. For example, I was -- and I still am -- the world's foremost authority on federal legal issues concerning California's unconstitutional smog impact fee.
>>>>>He said that the Founding Fathers did NOT believe that religion was properly something that was handed down from on high (you know, the state-sanctioned religion thing), but rather was best left to individuals to arrive at using their powers of reason and observation. <<<<<
I think that Jones' hostility towards organized religion, which was clearly shown by this statement, disqualifies him from deciding any establishment clause cases. Also, as I said, there is probably no foundation for Jones' views regarding the establishment clause and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers.
>>>>And your point would be what, exactly? That, because some of the Founding Fathers held beliefs that we now consider to be archaic, if not just plain wrong, that we should throw away everything that they said, whether it was correct or not?<<<<<
I never said that we should throw away everything that the founding fathers said -- I am just saying that we should not blindly follow everything that they say. Some of the adulation of the founding fathers is obscene -- an example is the Federalist Society. Ironically, Wikipedia says of the Federalist Society, " Its publications have printed articles criticizing teaching evolution and attacking the principle of separation of church and state. " That does not necessarily mean, however, that those are official positions of the society. Some justices of the Supreme Court are or have been members of the society. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
>>>>First, you were not arbitrarily banned. You were banned because your behavior violated their clearly stated rules.<<<<<
You continue to repeat this bullshit about something about which you know nothing. What kind of credibility do you think you have?
>>>>Second, considering how ineffective you claim IP blocking is, it basically stopped you.<<<<<<
Wrong. It was very easy to bypass this blockage by using anonymous proxies.
>>>>>Dynamic IP addresses are not truly immune from IP addressing blocking, a troublesome ISP can be blocked completely by blocking its subnets blocking by IP does require more resources<<<<<
At the high risk of blocking a lot of people unintentionally.
>>>>I use IP addresses to block incoming e-mail all the time. I simply use a blocklist that tracks open proxies, relays and known spammers and voila, scum be gone.<<<<<
The AOL spam filter does not even offer IP address blocking.
If there were any fear of tracking, these proxies would not use obvious names like hidemyass and unblockthis.
>>>>>You keep saying that like you've discovered one of the great secrets of the universe. Proxies have been around for YEARS. The reason most people don't use them is because most people have better things to waste their time on.<<<<<
But for me, these anonymous proxies were a godsend.
>>>>>Even the dynamic IP addresses handed out by dialup ISPs are not necessarily as random as you may want to think, since they are often allocated by region<<<<<
As I remember, my local IP addresses were in a block allocated strictly for private use and allowing no direct access to the Internet -- the block began with the prefix 172. But if I had direct connections to the Internet instead connections through an AOL proxy, I could not be assigned a number from this block because this block is reserved for private use.
>>>>>Anonymous proxies are designed to protect privacy, not to allow overgrown children to go where they are not welcome. <<<<<<
There you go again with this contempt for children.
The great brains at Panda's Thumb were not able to stop me, although it was obvious that they kept trying. The anonymous proxies that I was using apparently had static IP addresses, so when PT blocked the proxy I was using, I just switched to another.
>>>>>You can get into trouble for using a computer without its owner's permission. Some of the proxies on the list are not deliberately open proxies.<<<<<
There is no way that you can get in legal trouble just for calling up a website on the Internet.
>>>>>Data encoding, usually meant to be the obfuscation of e-mail addresses so spammers can't get them is a valuable tool for people wishing to prevent ending up on spam lists.<<<<<
The simple spam filter on AOL works pretty well for me.
>>>>>Cookie blocking can be performed through any web browser as can disabling client-side scripts, and both are very useful options for protecting privacy.<<<<<
I have used Internet Explorer to erase and block cookies, but the anonymous proxies also offer cookie blockage.
<<<<<>> If these proxies were intended to provide secure communications, they would not have obvious names like hidemyass, unblockthis, and proxyspy. And these proxies cannot prevent such things as wiretapping. <<
>>>>First, how did you get from anonymous to secure?<<<<<
I didn't.
>>>>>As for wiretapping, so what? If you are always being watched, security is pretty much moot, but if you know what you're doing, you can get by. First, you learn how to hide the messages you send so that they don't trigger any alarms themselves. <<<<<
I presume that wiretapping technology is sufficiently sophisticated that you cannot sneak a message through when no one is watching.
>>>>>As for identity theft, if you're running around giving your personal information to site like these, you clearly don't even have your own best interests at heart.<<<<<
I have not given out personal information to these sites.
>>>>>I said you VOLUNTARILY gave them your promise of silence in exchange for a tip of only marginal worth.<<<<<
I did not promise UD anything until after I got the information. And the tip was not of marginal worth -- without it I would not have had a clue as to how to bypass PT's IP address ban.
>>>>>There is not critical "need" for you to post at Panda's Thumb.<<<<<
PT is probably the biggest evolution blog there is, so naturally I wanted to post there. Also, I was very annoyed that PT proudly displays the Scientific American magazine web award logo while practicing arbitrary and unethical censorship.
>>>>Nope, no "contempt" for children.<<<<<
You showed your contempt again in your last post -- see above.
<<<<<>> Pretty soon your job will be moved to India where it will be performed by somebody getting one-tenth of the pay that you are getting. <<
no because I actually keep up on my skills.<<<<<
Those folks in India keep up on their skills, too.
>>>>>Tell you what, pay me the going rate for consulting ($40.00/hr) and you may have something. I don't give free advice to people like you.<<<<<<
You've given a lot of free advice here, most of it bad.
>>>>>I haven't been abusive in any way. <<<<<
No, nothing like that.
>>>>>Now, WHO is using the term "hacker" in the perjorative sense of "someone who breaks into computer systems?" That, sir, would be you.<<<<<<
You did not complain about my pejorative use of the term. Anyway, I like that term "hacker" -- it sounds like computerese.
> I interpreted Jones' statements literally -- you did not. <
Boy are you thick! Most of the comments here have been because you did not interpret Jones' statments literally. You paraphrased them incorrectly.
> Of course, Judge Jones' general knowledge of the law is far greater than mine <
Whose isn't?
> but a person can quickly become an expert in a narrow area of the law just by intensive study. <
As an unemployed person you have a great deal of time for intensive study. Why haven't you used this to learn something?
> I was -- and I still am -- the world's foremost authority on federal legal issues concerning California's unconstitutional smog impact fee. <
You are also the Emperor of France. As the world's foremost authority, Why was everything you filed on the smog impact fee case laughed out of court? Had you noticed that the winners of the case never cited your examples? Perhaps they were jealous of your brilliance?
> Some justices of the Supreme Court are or have been members of the society. <
Are justices of the Supreme Court founding fathers?
> You continue to repeat this bullshit about something about which you know nothing.<
This seems to be the basis of your blog. You repeat bullshit about many things about which you know nothing. Rob Serrano and many others have given the truth about why you were banned. They have also pointed out your normal tactic of repeating endlessly something that has already been proved to be false.
> The AOL spam filter does not even offer IP address blocking. <
AOL is for tyros. Their customers would not even know what IP address blocking is.
> There is no way that you can get in legal trouble just for calling up a website on the Internet. <
That is not what you were doing.
> Those folks in India keep up on their skills, too. <
Too bad you did not but you can't assume that because you were incompetent, others will be.
> I like that term "hacker" -- it sounds like computerese. <
That is all you seem to know about computers - "computerese". You have a computer. Why not try to learn something about them? Perhaps it is not too late for you to do something useful in your life.
Say Hi to Dave and Bill for me.
Voice, Dave and I (two fictitious characters according to Larry) have a little game going on here. The first one to determine your real identity wins the prize. Dave believes that you are Colin. I don't think you are. Who is right?
> Dave and I ... have a little game going on here. <
This sounds like fun! So far I am leading.
You might ask if I am someone who either of you know. You might ask if either of you have ever met me. You might ask if I am a relative of Larry's. You might ask if I live in Los Angeles as you and Larry do, or in the Bay area as Dave does. You might, but you didn't.
If either of you actually guesses correctly, I will let you know. What do you win? Is Larry in the game?
No one would guess that I could be anyone who knows Larry. If I did, I would likely have already told everyone about how he used to drive an AMC Gremlin reminiscent of the small cars that other clowns come out of.
That is hint #1. If I give you five hints and neither of you have guessed correctly, I will claim the prize.
> What do you win? <
A bag of acorns.
Voice In The Wilderness said --
>>>>> As the world's foremost authority, Why was everything you filed on the smog impact fee case laughed out of court? Had you noticed that the winners of the case never cited your examples? Perhaps they were jealous of your brilliance?<<<<<<
I am often accused of talking about things that I supposedly know nothing about, but look at what this stupid ignoramus VIW is doing.
In my very first rebuttal brief ever, I argued that California had forfeited its immunity against state-tax suits in federal courts when the state "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" by enacting a tax that was entirely based on the state's unique status under federal auto emissions laws -- and I provided a Supreme Court citation for that argument. The argument was so airtight that the state's attorney did not even bother to file a reply brief. The judge, TJ "Mad" Hatter (an attorney acquaintance told me that this judge had a bad reputation for issuing final judgments without opinions), of course did not say anything, either. As to whether the attorneys and the judge "were jealous of my brilliance," the answer is a resounding "YES-S-S-S-S-S-S !. If I had made that argument as an attorney, it would have been regarded as a stroke of genius. By the way, a bunch of attorneys had previously challenged the smog impact fee in another federal district court, but they apparently did not make that argument (otherwise the judge's opinion would have mentioned it). They were thrown out of federal court too, and sued in state court and won there. At least I made a reasonable argument in support of keeping the suit in federal court. I kept pursuing the case because I was rightly pissed off that the judge had ignored my argument.
So why don't you just drop dead and go to hell, VIW. I am fed up with your crap that is just cluttering up my blog without saying anything meaningful.
> The argument was so airtight that the state's attorney did not even bother to file a reply brief. <
It wasn't worth a reply. That is why the judge threw it out without further comment.
> As to whether the attorneys and the judge "were jealous of my brilliance," the answer is a resounding "YES-S-S-S-S-S-S !. <
That's it! The judge ruled against you because he was jealous of your brilliance.
> At least I made a reasonable argument in support of keeping the suit in federal court. <
At least you thought your argument was reasonable. Nobody else did.
> I kept pursuing the case because I was rightly pissed off that the judge had ignored my argument. <
And your stuff kept being thrown out by the judge and ignored by the opposing attorney.
> I am fed up with your crap that is just cluttering up my blog without saying anything meaningful. <
Your own crap doesn't say anything meaningful but it does provide a great deal of entertainment. The first item of yours that I quoted should keep everyone in stitches for hours.
By the way, Woogl, are you in the contest?
Bill, Dave,
I haven't heard any questions from you but I have given you another hint. It is contained in the post above.
Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/05/2006 10:36:10 PM ) --
<<<<<<<> The argument was so airtight that the state's attorney did not even bother to file a reply brief. <
It wasn't worth a reply. That is why the judge threw it out without further comment.<<<<<<
VIW, you are a stupid, birdbrained ignoramus who is pretending that you even know your ass from a hole in the ground, which you do not. In the Supreme Court case I cited, the defendant, Alabama, was of course surprised by the Supreme Court ruling that a state-owned railroad lacked immunity from federal regulations just because the railroad was involved in interstate commerce. The entanglement of the smog impact fee in the federal sphere was much more direct and obvious.
If you want to talk about stupid arguments, then talk about this: In an appeals brief in my lawsuit, the California attorneys actually argued that Congress authorized the smog impact fee when it enacted the so-called "California waiver" provision, which allows California to receive EPA waivers of federal pre-emption of auto emissions regulations. Such waivers are granted only after formal EPA hearings. The California attorneys made the same stupid argument in the state courts and of course the argument was thrown out.
VIW, you are only making yourself look more and more foolish. You just make assertions without backing them up with evidence or arguments.
Now as I asked -- just drop dead and go to hell and stop cluttering up my blog with your stupid drivel.
> You just make assertions without backing them up with evidence or arguments. <
When people present evidence and it doesn't support your misconceptions, you pretend that it was not presented. This has been called to your attention many times.
> The judge might have at least mentioned my argument so that I would know that he at least read it, but instead he said nothing. <
You don't get it do you? The judge has no need to repeat everything filed in a case. The judge just swatted you away like he might a fly. With the number of windmills that you charge, you may have already been declared a vexatious litigant in which case he would not even be required to read your filings.
Every court is plagued by assholes such as yourself so it became necessary to make special rules to deal with them. If judges spent the time to repeat the rants of every lunatic that howled at the moon just to show that he heard them, they would have no time left to do what little they already do.
He gave your arguments all of the attention that they deserved. Next time try to have more deserving arguments.
Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/06/2006 07:57:15 AM ) --
<<<<<> The judge might have at least mentioned my argument so that I would know that he at least read it, but instead he said nothing. <
You don't get it do you? The judge has no need to repeat everything filed in a case.<<<<<<
He repeated nothing in the case. He never gave one shred of evidence that he read anything at all in the case.
A judge with half a brain would have seen the defendant's failure to file a reply brief as a red flag and would have investigated.
When I sued the EPA in the DC circuit court of appeals, the judges there gave a screwed-up opinion but at least they showed that they had read the briefs.
Also, in the state court case (which I did not participate in), the appeals court's opinion mentioned California's argument that Congress had authorized the smog impact fee, despite the absurdity of that argument. So don't give me this bullshit that judges just ignore absurd arguments.
>>>>>Every court is plagued by assholes such as yourself so it became necessary to make special rules to deal with them.<<<<<<
What special rules, shithead? There are no special rules authorizing judges to issue final judgments without opinions or to not read the briefs at all.
Anyway, with the new national rule authorizing citation of unpublished opinions in all federal courts, we may expect to see an increase in the number of final judgments without opinions -- many judges would rather issue no opinion at all rather than issue one that might be misinterpreted later.
Anyway, VIW, you are just hiding behind the judge because you are unable to come up with any rebuttal to my argument. So why don't you get the hell out of here, shithead, before I get really unhappy with you.
>>>You don't get it do you? The judge has no need to repeat everything filed in a case.<<<
> He repeated nothing in the case. <
Bingo!
> He never gave one shred of evidence that he read anything at all in the case. <
The evidence that he read it was that he summarily dismissed it, as it deserved.
> A judge with half a brain would have seen the defendant's failure to file a reply brief as a red flag and would have investigated. <
They may have, but a judge with a whole brain would have seen that no reply was warranted.
> When I sued the EPA in the DC circuit court of appeals, the judges there gave a screwed-up opinion but at least they showed that they had read the briefs. <
They seemed to have given a good opinion. Appeals courts nearly always give commentary with their opinions for obvious reasons. If you either knew something about law or had a modicum of common sense, you would know this.
> So don't give me this bullshit that judges just ignore absurd arguments. <
They didn't see it as absurd.
> What special rules, shithead? <
You seem to be a fair librarian. Look up "Vexatious Litigant". Courts are often inundated with filings from lunatics who only want to prove their own existence. If you have been declared a vexatious litigant by the court, the judge may simply ignore your filings in some cases.
> many judges would rather issue no opinion at all rather than issue one that might be misinterpreted later.<
Seeing as how you have misinterpreted so much, I can see their point.
> So why don't you get the hell out of here, shithead, before I get really unhappy with you. <
Good God! I certainly would not want you to get really unhappy with me, asshole.
My friends gave me a nice toy for my birthday. You squeeze its foot and it screeches obscenities. (Hint for the day) They needn't have done that. I can find the same thing here on your blog.
>>I was -- and I still am -- the world's foremost authority on federal legal issues concerning California's unconstitutional smog impact fee.<
"The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, including their own. When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities." - Scott Granneman
Some of you may wonder about Larry’s physical appearance. Does he look as funny as he sounds?
He is of average height and a bit overweight from his diet of beer and potato chips. His physique is similar to the androgyne “Pat” on Saturday Night Live.
His expression is always that of someone who has been chased a great distance, narrowly escaping, and is expecting another attack soon.
What little is left of his hair is combed over the top of his head. Despite his habit of constantly tamping it down, this hair doesn’t stay down. It tends to stand straight up, giving the appearance of a startled dog with just one ear.
Bill Carter (?) said --
>>>>>>"The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, including their own. When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities." - Scott Granneman <<<<<<
And this is supposed to be a great gem of wisdom? It is one of the most egregious examples of pseudo-profundity that I have ever seen. Reminds me of the guy in the Anton Chekhov play, "The Three Sisters," who said that if something were closer, it would not be so far away.
> if something were closer, it would not be so far away. <
This sounds like your post about Pat Robertson:
"A true crank, particularly a crank without a large following (unlike, say, Pat Robertson), would not have gotten all the attention that I have gotten."
If someone did not have a large following, they would not have a large following.
Now tamp down your hair. It is standing up again.
Bill Carter (?) said --
>>>>>> if something were closer, it would not be so far away. <
This sounds like your post about Pat Robertson:
"A true crank, particularly a crank without a large following (unlike, say, Pat Robertson), would not have gotten all the attention that I have gotten."
If someone did not have a large following, they would not have a large following.<<<<<<
Since you are obviously incapable of the simplest reasoning, I am going to have to explain this to you step by step, moron.
If a true crank like Pat Robertson set up a blog to oppose Darwinism, that blog would probably immediately get a lot of traffic and comments because he is already well known.
However, I doubt that an anti-Darwinist blog by a true crank as unknown as I am would have attracted as much attention as my blog has. Most people just don't waste their time with unknown cranks.
OK, maybe I should have said, "A true crank, particularly a crank without a large following to begin with (unlike, say, Pat Robertson), would not have gotten all the attention that I have gotten." But anyone with half a brain could have figured out what I was trying to say.
Now compare what I said to the statement, "When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well." LOL I wonder where you got that gem of wisdom.
> I doubt that an anti-Darwinist blog by a true crank as unknown as I am would have attracted as much attention as my blog has. <
Your following, limited as it is, is almost entirely carryovers from PT and CW or people who I have attracted with my sincere efforts to publicize your blog.
> I wonder where you got that gem of wisdom. <
Possibly from the author I credited. You might find other gems on his blog. If you are interested, you can find that with any search engine. Ask the neighborhood kids to show you how to use a search engine.
> But anyone with half a brain could have figured out what I was trying to say. <
That is the problem. Those of us with whole brains take your statements to be literal. I am sure that people with only half a brain would see things your way.
> But anyone with half a brain could have figured out what I was trying to say. <
That is the problem. Those of us with whole brains take your statements to be literal. I am sure that people with only half a brain would see things your way.
There is hope for you, Larry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5058986.stm
Now that we are into quotes, I have found one that may explain why Larry continues to repeat the same old, tired, discredited arguments.
"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein
That seems to be a variation of Hopkins Law"
"If you do what you did, you'll get what you got."
Voice In The Wilderness said --
<<<<<<<> I doubt that an anti-Darwinist blog by a true crank as unknown as I am would have attracted as much attention as my blog has. <
Your following, limited as it is, is almost entirely carryovers from PT and CW or people who I have attracted with my sincere efforts to publicize your blog.<<<<<<<
And they have shown a complete inability to rebut my arguments -- most have not addressed my arguments at all. Darwinists don't do so well when the opposition is not censored.
And no sensible person would waste time talking to a "crank" (I guess that means I am not sensible, because I am wasting time talking to you).
<<<<<> I wonder where you got that gem of wisdom. <
Possibly from the author I credited.<<<<<<<
Who is "I"? Your last posts were under the name "Bill Carter" -- now you are posting under the name "Voice In the Wilderness." I thought that using multiple names was supposed to be a no-no.
Voice In the Wilderness said --
>>>>"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein <<<<<<
Like the results you get when flipping a coin?
Another great gem of wisdom.
>> >>>>"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein <<<<<< <<
>> Like the results you get when flipping a coin? <<
Yes, if you expect the coin to suddenly come up something other than heads or tails.
>> Another great gem of wisdom. <<
Truly it is if you are one so inclined to try thinking about it.
Rob Serrano said --
>> >>>>"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein <<<<<< <<
>> Like the results you get when flipping a coin? <<
Yes, if you expect the coin to suddenly come up something other than heads or tails.<<<<<
That is not a literal interpretation of Einstein's statement. Getting tails is clearly a different result than getting heads.
A truly insane person would flip the coin only once and conclude that there can be only one result. That is like the Darwinists who claim that ID was "refuted" 50 years ago and that hence (1) there is no need to reconsider ID in the light of new evidence and/or arguments and (2) there is no need to consider other criticisms of Darwinism. With the possible exception of the Taliban, Darwinists are the most dogmatic, prejudiced, intolerant, and anti-intellectual people on the face of the earth.
<<<<<>> Another great gem of wisdom. <<
Truly it is if you are one so inclined to try thinking about it. <<<<<
I thought about it and found it wanting. Just because it came from Einstein does not necessarily mean that it is worth anything.
A statement of Einstein that I really like is, "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Darwinism is too simple.
> Who is "I"? Your last posts were under the name "Bill Carter" -- now you are posting under the name "Voice In the Wilderness." I thought that using multiple names was supposed to be a no-no. <
Yes I have posted as "Bill Carter" and a few others, including "Larry Fafarman". You are the one who began it with your phony Dave posts. Of course I admit what you also know. There is a real Bill Carter and a real Dave who are posting under their own names (not the fake Dave which is you). Let's take one at a time. Why do you denying that you know Bill Carter, or is it that your are claiming that all posts under that name are not by him?
> That is not a literal interpretation of Einstein's statement. <
You are the world's biggest dunce at knowing what a literal interpretation of anything is. You always entertain us with your restatements as if the original authors did not know what they meant to say.
I forgot to mention that others, including yourself, have posted as me. I don't really mind, the more the merrier. Yours were as transparent as usual.
>> >>>>>You can always stop responding. Since I'm responding to you, you really can't claim I'm derailing anything now, can you?<<<< <<
>> I am the one under pressure to respond because I am the one who is being attacked by the comments -- not you. You just took it upon yourself to butt in. A lot of blogs simply delete comments that are critical of the blog or the bloggers. Just try criticizing Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry (pronounced "Velsberry") on Panda's Thumb and see how far you get. <<
Since you decided to once again trip Godwin's Law, which, like most law, you seem incapable of comprehending. I will start by pointing out that you have already lost the debate again. I took it upon myself to "butt-in" because I despise liars, which you have demonstrated yourself to be over and over again.
As far as the "pressure" you feel that you are under to respond... So, what? You want to be "controversial," expect response. f you didn't want any outside attention, maybe you shouldn't have started blogging your prolonged "bitch-fit" against the forces of reality.
>> >>>>>I am someone who actually READ the quote. Something that you, in your all-encompassing hatred of all things Judge Jones, you failed to do.<<<<< <<
>> I interpreted Jones' statements literally -- you did not. <<
The problem is that your supposed "literal interpretation" is about as far from what could ever be considered "literal interpretation" as can be. You took what he said and you allowed your perverse vendetta against Judge Jones to not only color, but to completely blot out what you want to believe that he said.
>> I challenge you to find one authority on the Internet that supports Jones' views on the founding fathers' religious beliefs or the establishment clause. <<
Well, let me see, how about we start with the definition of Deism, the belief shared by many of the Founding Fathers: "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation." You know, like what Judge Jones is describing. Then, let us just look at the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, two more strikes against you. Both the Deism and the actual First Amendment agree with Judge Jones' characterization and not with your assertion. Shock. Surprise.
>> >>>>>>First of all, I'm sure that, as someone who has passed the BAR exam and who presumably spent several years in law school, I'd wager that Judge Jones understanding of the legal history of this country is pretty good. <<<<< <<
>> In his commencement speech, Jones said that his above "precepts and beliefs" about the founding fathers and the establishment clause were acquired not in law school but in his undergraduate days at Dickinson College -- "As I hope that you can see, these precepts and beliefs, grounded in my liberal arts education, guide me each day as a federal trial judge." Also, he said earlier in his speech, "One might be tempted to assume that I received all of the tools necessary to understand the complex expert testimony and determine the facts solely through my law school education. If so, they would be incorrect. In fact, it was my liberal arts education, achieved right here at Dickinson College that provided me with the best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case." -- from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html <<
You still haven't contradicted what I said. All you've done is tried to distract from discrepancy in the level of knowledge between Judge Jones, who can be viewed as relatively authoritative, and yourself, who can be viewed as relatively ignorant of US Law and history.
>> Of course, Judge Jones' general knowledge of the law is far greater than mine, but a person can quickly become an expert in a narrow area of the law just by intensive study. For example, I was -- and I still am -- the world's foremost authority on federal legal issues concerning California's unconstitutional smog impact fee. <<
According to you. I'm sure that you can appreciate the lack of respect given to people who claim, without evidence, to be experts in any field. From all that I'm hearing your claim of authority comes from losing in court and whining about how you wuz robbed becase they were all out to get you. Hardly what can be considered an expert. So, please, you're impressing no one, so stow the Ally McBeal routine.
>> >>>>>He said that the Founding Fathers did NOT believe that religion was properly something that was handed down from on high (you know, the state-sanctioned religion thing), but rather was best left to individuals to arrive at using their powers of reason and observation. <<<<< <<
>> I think that Jones' hostility towards organized religion, which was clearly shown by this statement, disqualifies him from deciding any establishment clause cases. Also, as I said, there is probably no foundation for Jones' views regarding the establishment clause and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. <<
You have yet to demonstrate that this supposed "hostility" on Judge Jones towards religion even exists except in your bizarro-world fantasies.
As to your assertion that Judge Jones' supposed "hostility" to religion disqualifying him from deciding "Establishment Clause" cases, the only suitable response is "Huh?" Since the ID side keeps on insisting that it is not just religious apologetics and that ID is science, how would Judge Jones' views on religion and the Establishment Clause even come into play. Oh yeah, that's right, it comes into play because the side you wanted to have win the case lost, primarily because the plaintiffs were able to convincingly argue that ID is not science and does not belong in science classes. Given that the pro-IDists didn't have a problem with Judge Jones until they lost the case. Your opinion on Judge Jones before his ruling is unrecorded as far as I can see, and I don't feel like searching any deeper because there's really only so many times you can read the term net.kook associated before you HAVE to start taking it seriously. Suffice it to say, though, that you seem to have come in for a bit of a shock when ID lost the case, so I wager that you were among the "Judge Jones is on our side" crowd before you decided that he should be named Damien so he could push Lee Remick over the railing. So basically, your vendetta against Judge Jones comes across as little more than a rampant case of sore-loserism, but I digress.
>> >>>>And your point would be what, exactly? That, because some of the Founding Fathers held beliefs that we now consider to be archaic, if not just plain wrong, that we should throw away everything that they said, whether it was correct or not?<<<<< <<
>> I never said that we should throw away everything that the founding fathers said -- I am just saying that we should not blindly follow everything that they say. Some of the adulation of the founding fathers is obscene -- an example is the Federalist Society. Ironically, Wikipedia says of the Federalist Society, " Its publications have printed articles criticizing teaching evolution and attacking the principle of separation of church and state. " That does not necessarily mean, however, that those are official positions of the society. Some justices of the Supreme Court are or have been members of the society. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society <<
You know, it's kind of unfortunate, that one of the few sensible things that you've said in this thread is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand, since no one has been arguing that we should all just follow, lemming-like, everything that the Founding Fathers said. Groups such as the Federalist Society, despite the cloak that wrap around themselves are basically reactionary organizations. They don't care so much about Constitutional issues as they do about preventing any form of change in society, by force of law, if need be.
>> >>>>First, you were not arbitrarily banned. You were banned because your behavior violated their clearly stated rules.<<<<< <<
>> You continue to repeat this bullshit about something about which you know nothing. What kind of credibility do you think you have? <<
More than you.
>> >>>>Second, considering how ineffective you claim IP blocking is, it basically stopped you.<<<<<< <<
>> Wrong. It was very easy to bypass this blockage by using anonymous proxies. <<
You're not there anymore, are you?
>> >>>>>Dynamic IP addresses are not truly immune from IP addressing blocking, a troublesome ISP can be blocked completely by blocking its subnets blocking by IP does require more resources<<<<< <<
>> At the high risk of blocking a lot of people unintentionally. <<
It's a risk. Some ISPs are so much trouble as to be worth the risk (AOL, for many people is just such an example).
>> >>>>I use IP addresses to block incoming e-mail all the time. I simply use a blocklist that tracks open proxies, relays and known spammers and voila, scum be gone.<<<<< <<
>> The AOL spam filter does not even offer IP address blocking. <<
The AOL spam filter doesn't matter to me. Many ISPs and most corporate e-mail servers provide Blacklist services. If your e-mail has gone through any open proxies, it can be blocked, and many sites will do so. It's a very simple mechanism
>> If there were any fear of tracking, these proxies would not use obvious names like hidemyass and unblockthis. <<
Once again, they don't care because they are primarily hosting a list of such proxies. Unless you're using their servers (the two proxies I mentioned), you're using computers that aren't even owned by them, and which, as far as you know, may not be legal for you to use.
>> >>>>>You keep saying that like you've discovered one of the great secrets of the universe. Proxies have been around for YEARS. The reason most people don't use them is because most people have better things to waste their time on.<<<<< <<
>> But for me, these anonymous proxies were a godsend. <<
But only because you have a very shallow understanding of what is important.
>> >>>>>Even the dynamic IP addresses handed out by dialup ISPs are not necessarily as random as you may want to think, since they are often allocated by region<<<<< <<
>> As I remember, my local IP addresses were in a block allocated strictly for private use and allowing no direct access to the Internet -- the block began with the prefix 172. But if I had direct connections to the Internet instead connections through an AOL proxy, I could not be assigned a number from this block because this block is reserved for private use. <<
Any IP address in 172.16.*.* - 172.31.*.*, 192.168.*.*, and 10.*.*.* are predefined nonroutable IP addresses. Most home networks and a large number of small business networks use one of these blocks. If you want to access the internet proper, you need to set up a gateway to the internet to route packets from your internal network. Your IP address for the purposes of internet traffic becomes the address of the gateway.
>> >>>>>Anonymous proxies are designed to protect privacy, not to allow overgrown children to go where they are not welcome. <<<<<< <<
>> There you go again with this contempt for children. <<
Incorrect. I have contempt for you. You are an overgrown child, but you no more represent children as a group than Peter Pan does.
>> The great brains at Panda's Thumb were not able to stop me, although it was obvious that they kept trying. The anonymous proxies that I was using apparently had static IP addresses, so when PT blocked the proxy I was using, I just switched to another. <<
And yet they still managed to stop you. I will also take this moment to note that you have yet to actually put up an actual defense of your behavior. The most likely reason being that there can be no defense given to your behavior. You violated PTs rules and they kicked you off. A truly mature adult would take a moment to reflect on why you were banned. Your response, being as how you are apparently severely lacking in maturity was instead to try to get back at them for responding to your misdeeds.
>> >>>>>You can get into trouble for using a computer without its owner's permission. Some of the proxies on the list are not deliberately open proxies.<<<<< <<
>> There is no way that you can get in legal trouble just for calling up a website on the Internet. <<
When going through a proxy, you are not just "calling up a website." If you were knowledgeable about the internet, you would know that. When you go through a proxy, you are using that proxy's resources for your own ends. If you are tromping through a corporate server that happens to have been left open, you can be a deep trouble. Want to continue playing this little game?
>> >>>>>Data encoding, usually meant to be the obfuscation of e-mail addresses so spammers can't get them is a valuable tool for people wishing to prevent ending up on spam lists.<<<<< <<
>> The simple spam filter on AOL works pretty well for me. <<
So, you're saying that even spammers don't want to send e-mail to you. But, seriously, it's better to not receive spam than to have to use a filter (using your own resources to block what should never have been sent to you in the first place).
>> >>>>>Cookie blocking can be performed through any web browser as can disabling client-side scripts, and both are very useful options for protecting privacy.<<<<< <<
>> I have used Internet Explorer to erase and block cookies, but the anonymous proxies also offer cookie blockage. <<
Since I'm talking about the "features" these proxies provide, you're basically repeating what I said.
>> <<<<<>> If these proxies were intended to provide secure communications, they would not have obvious names like hidemyass, unblockthis, and proxyspy. And these proxies cannot prevent such things as wiretapping. <<
>>>>First, how did you get from anonymous to secure?<<<<< <<
>> I didn't. <<
Apparently you did, since you brought up "secure communications."
>> >>>>>As for wiretapping, so what? If you are always being watched, security is pretty much moot, but if you know what you're doing, you can get by. First, you learn how to hide the messages you send so that they don't trigger any alarms themselves. <<<<< <<
>> I presume that wiretapping technology is sufficiently sophisticated that you cannot sneak a message through when no one is watching. <<
Boy, you truly are clueless. First, whatever authority has to know, or suspect, that you are going to send a particular message. They also need to have an idea of what the message is going to look like. Look up steganography for examples.
>> >>>>>As for identity theft, if you're running around giving your personal information to site like these, you clearly don't even have your own best interests at heart.<<<<< <<
>> I have not given out personal information to these sites. <<
Then you shouldn't have mentioned Identity Theft, should you?
>> >>>>>I said you VOLUNTARILY gave them your promise of silence in exchange for a tip of only marginal worth.<<<<< <<
>> I did not promise UD anything until after I got the information. And the tip was not of marginal worth -- without it I would not have had a clue as to how to bypass PT's IP address ban. <<
So, you gave them the promise without having a reason to. And you still think you have some credibility when you say you promised to criticized UD?
The "clue" that they gave you that you whored your supposed integrity for, is useless. Even the most limited of Googlers could have found myriad sites.
>> >>>>>There is not critical "need" for you to post at Panda's Thumb.<<<<< <<
>> PT is probably the biggest evolution blog there is, so naturally I wanted to post there. Also, I was very annoyed that PT proudly displays the Scientific American magazine web award logo while practicing arbitrary and unethical censorship. <<
Oooh poor little Larry, told by the Big and Powerful PT administrators that you had violated their rules and were henceforth banned from posting there. Waah. There banishment of you was neither unethical nor arbitrary. Your misbehavior required it. They have rules, you flagrantly violated them. Get over it, already.
>> >>>>Nope, no "contempt" for children.<<<<< <<
>> You showed your contempt again in your last post -- see above. <<
Only insofar as you have proven to be incapable of reading things as they were written. If I were to look up "Projection" in the dictionary, I'd probably find your picture next to it. You don't seem capable of providing an honest reading of Judge Jones or me, but that is rather par for the course, given your history.
>> <<<<<>> Pretty soon your job will be moved to India where it will be performed by somebody getting one-tenth of the pay that you are getting. <<
no because I actually keep up on my skills.<<<<< <<
>> Those folks in India keep up on their skills, too. <<
So what's your excuse for not having job now? Are we outsourcing Engineers to India, too? Or did they just find someone without a borderline personality?
>> >>>>>Tell you what, pay me the going rate for consulting ($40.00/hr) and you may have something. I don't give free advice to people like you.<<<<<< <<
>> You've given a lot of free advice here, most of it bad. <<
Given your widespread ignorance, I'd have to say that you're really not in a position to judge what advice is good or bad. You have to at least know something before you can determine the quality of information you're getting. You don't, so you can't.
>> >>>>>I haven't been abusive in any way. <<<<< <<
>> No, nothing like that. <<
Glad you finally agree.
>> >>>>>Now, WHO is using the term "hacker" in the perjorative sense of "someone who breaks into computer systems?" That, sir, would be you.<<<<<< <<
>> You did not complain about my pejorative use of the term. Anyway, I like that term "hacker" -- it sounds like computerese. <<
You never did learn about that whole consistency, thing, did you, Larry? First you say I'm using the term perjoratively, now when I point out that it was YOU who did so, you try to make an issue that I "did not complain" about your "perjorative use of the term." I think correcting your use of the term is more than enough complaining about your use.
As for the last bit, so what you're saying is that the actual correct meaning of the term is unimportant to you but, you use it because you think it makes you look smarter. Well, guess what, it doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look like a fool.
>> >> >>>>"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein <<<<<< << <<
>> >> Like the results you get when flipping a coin? << <<
>> Yes, if you expect the coin to suddenly come up something other than heads or tails.<<<<< <<
>> That is not a literal interpretation of Einstein's statement. Getting tails is clearly a different result than getting heads. <<
Depends on how you define the result set. When you flip a coin, it is going to land with one face up (landing on edge is, in the logic of the ID crowd, to improbable as to be impossible). An insane person would flip the coin repeatedly expecting it to suddenly not land.
>> A truly insane person would flip the coin only once and conclude that there can be only one result. That is like the Darwinists who claim that ID was "refuted" 50 years ago and that hence (1) there is no need to reconsider ID in the light of new evidence and/or arguments and (2) there is no need to consider other criticisms of Darwinism. With the possible exception of the Taliban, Darwinists are the most dogmatic, prejudiced, intolerant, and anti-intellectual people on the face of the earth. <<
Wow, not only did you apparently not read the quote mentioned (surprise, surprise), you then make one of your pattented D.B. Cooper leaps from the reality plane. An insane person, as mentioned above does not flip the coin once and assume that result holds forever. Per the quote they flip it over and over hoping to get some different result than "coin lands face up."
ID was not only refuted 50 years ago, but it is not, as you seem to want to suppose, supported by anything other than assertion and wishful thinking. Once again, there is NO theory of ID. As with it mother, Creationism, it's all handwaving and bluster from people whose sole argument is "I can't understand this, therefore God must have done it." The ONLY difference is that, in its dishonest attempts to pretend to not be Creationism, ID removes the overt reference to God and changes it to "our unidentified Designer who may be anything but who we define as having all the qualities of what we call 'God,' but don't you dare say that it's an alien like those flakes the Raelians." The IDists swear up and down that ID is a science and not religious apologetics and yet they consistently call opponents "aetheists."
You really don't see the irony in your likening of "Darwinists" to the "Taliban," can you. Can you say "pervasive projection?" I knew you could.
>> <<<<<>> Another great gem of wisdom. <<
Truly it is if you are one so inclined to try thinking about it. <<<<< <<
>> I thought about it and found it wanting. Just because it came from Einstein does not necessarily mean that it is worth anything. <<
You apparently didn't actually think about it, since you don't really seem to have read it.
>> A statement of Einstein that I really like is, "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Darwinism is too simple. <<
And, like so many things, you misapply the quote and show your lack of understanding. First of all, and you would know this if you knew ANYTHING about evolutionary theory, you would see the ID is simpler by far than Evolution. Evolution proposes an actual theory and offers predictive capabilities. ID offers nothing at all. It proposes a vague entity of undefined qualities that supposedly is responsible for creating all life.
ID is religious apologetics and nothing more. The only reason you like pushing it so much is because of your own lack of understanding of the actual theory of Evolution.
That and because you're a dedicated crank.
Another dissertation from that stupid moron, Rob Serrano ( Friday, June 09, 2006 4:32:27 AM ) --
Rob Serrano said --
>>>>>>< I interpreted Jones' statements literally -- you did not. <<
>>>>>Well, let me see, how about we start with the definition of Deism, the belief shared by many of the Founding Fathers: "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation."<<<<<
That is not a complete definition of Deism -- according to Wikipedia, Deism includes the teleological argument of design.
Jefferson and Franklin -- and maybe also Madison and Washington -- are believed to have been Deists. We don't know much about many of the other founding fathers -- 39 men signed the Constitution.
Also, there is no evidence that the founding fathers would have approved arbitrary censorship of ideas, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Anyway, we are not bound by all the thoughts of the founding fathers.
>>>>>You still haven't contradicted what I said. All you've done is tried to distract from discrepancy in the level of knowledge between Judge Jones, who can be viewed as relatively authoritative, and yourself, who can be viewed as relatively ignorant of US Law and history.<<<<<
On the contrary, Jones' commencement speech at Dickinson showed him to be an utter ignoramus about history and philosophy. I'm surprised he was apparently not booed.
Also, I pointed out that Jones said that his statements were based on his undergraduate education and not on his law education.
>>>>>From all that I'm hearing your claim of authority comes from losing in court and whining about how you wuz robbed becase they were all out to get you.<<<<<
Well, I WUZ robbed. Neither the California's attorney nor the judge even attempted to counter my claim that the state had forfeited immunity from tax suits in federal courts by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" (with a citation of a Supreme Court opinion) when the state enacted a tax that was entirely based on the state's unique status under federal auto emissions laws. No other state could have enacted such a tax, and therefore California was not being co-equal with the other states when it enacted the tax. If I had been an attorney, my argument would have been regarded as a stroke of genius (as I pointed out, some attorneys who also tried to sue in federal court failed to make this same argument).
Credentials are not supposed to win debates -- either on the Internet or in the courts.
>>>>>You have yet to demonstrate that this supposed "hostility" on Judge Jones towards religion even exists except in your bizarro-world fantasies.<<<<<
I said that Jones was hostile towards organized religion -- he said in his speech,
"The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." "Something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible" is a reference to organized religion. Saying that the statement represents hostility towards organized religion is the only reasonable interpretation. I don't see why you have such a problem with that interpretation.
>>>>>Given that the pro-IDists didn't have a problem with Judge Jones until they lost the case. Your opinion on Judge Jones before his ruling is unrecorded as far as I can see, <<<<<
When the trial was in progress, I could not comment much because I didn't know enough about the case. Later I found a lot of things that Jones did wrong during the trial -- see my article "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in the Dover Intelligent Design case." And what is wrong with criticizing Jones' rulings? You Darwinists have this strange idea that his rulings are above criticism.
>>>>>You know, it's kind of unfortunate, that one of the few sensible things that you've said in this thread is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand, since no one has been arguing that we should all just follow, lemming-like, everything that the Founding Fathers said. <<<<<
Jones essentially said that we should follow the Founding Fathers in a "lemming-like" manner. His speech abjectly praised the Founding Fathers -- he said, "Remember that Thomas Jefferson, throughout his life, accumulated a library of almost ten thousand books. George Washington died with nearly a thousand volumes in his collection. These gentlemen read voraciously, including daily newspapers and periodicals. Now, I don't mean to compare myself with either of these men, but at age fifty my night stand is stacked with books on many subjects, I read several newspapers each day, and numerous magazines each week. And just like you, I also consume information and news on-line." .
<<<<<<>> Wrong. It was very easy to bypass this blockage by using anonymous proxies. <<
You're not there anymore, are you?<<<<<<
The reason for that is that I figured it was a waste of time posting dissident comments where they were likely to be deleted.
>>>>>Many ISPs and most corporate e-mail servers provide Blacklist services.<<<<<
It is unethical to offer or use blacklist services, as blacklists can hurt legitimate Internet users as well as illegitimate ones.
>>>>>> If your e-mail has gone through any open proxies, it can be blocked, and many sites will do so. It's a very simple mechanism.<<<<<<
Normally, only my ISP and the proxy will know that I sent a message through an anonymous proxy, if they keep records. My ISP is not supposed to divulge information about me except for legitimate purposes of law enforcement.
<<<<<>> There you go again with this contempt for children. <<
Incorrect. I have contempt for you. You are an overgrown child, but you no more represent children as a group than Peter Pan does.<<<<<<<
You and Colin are the only ones I have ever seen trying to insult people by comparing them to children, e.g., "you no-good so and so, you're nothing but a child!" Remember -- it was a child who pointed out that the ermperor had no clothes.
>>>>>And yet they still managed to stop you.<<<<<<<
No, PT never managed to block my comments.
>>>>>>>> There is no way that you can get in legal trouble just for calling up a website on the Internet. <<
When going through a proxy, you are not just "calling up a website." If you were knowledgeable about the internet, you would know that. When you go through a proxy, you are using that proxy's resources for your own ends. If you are tromping through a corporate server that happens to have been left open, you can be a deep trouble.<<<<<<<
There is nothing illegal about using anonymous proxies -- there are hundreds or even thousands of them on the Internet. If the proxy is doing something illegal without my knowledge, that is not my problem.
Pretty soon you are going to be saying that email forwarding services are illegal because they hide the identity of the senders.
>>>>>So, you're saying that even spammers don't want to send e-mail to you.<<<<<<
Wrong. Most spammers (the advertising kind) will send email to anyone.
>>>>>But, seriously, it's better to not receive spam than to have to use a filter <<<<<<
Wrong. Desired messages are sometimes filtered as spam. AOL always gives me the opportunity to review filtered spam to see if there is anything I want.
<<<<<>> I have used Internet Explorer to erase and block cookies, but the anonymous proxies also offer cookie blockage. <<
Since I'm talking about the "features" these proxies provide, you're basically repeating what I said.<<<<<<
My pointing out that I use Internet Explorer to manage spam was not a repetition of what you said.
>>>>First, how did you get from anonymous to secure?<<<<< <<
>> I didn't.<<
Apparently you did, since you brought up "secure communications."<<<<<<
I don't remember exactly who first brought up "secure communications" (it does not really matter), but I was just pointing out that using anonymous proxies does not necessarily provide secure communications. I used the example of wiretapping.
<<<<<>> I presume that wiretapping technology is sufficiently sophisticated that you cannot sneak a message through when no one is watching. <<
Boy, you truly are clueless. First, whatever authority has to know, or suspect, that you are going to send a particular message.<<<<<<
Of course -- they have to wiretap you first. But what I am saying is that listening can be automated.
<<<<<>> I have not given out personal information to these sites. <<
Then you shouldn't have mentioned Identity Theft, should you?<<<<<<
You were the one who brought up the issue of identity theft by claiming that theft of personal data is one of the risks of using anonymous proxies.
<<<<< >> I did not promise UD anything until after I got the information. And the tip was not of marginal worth -- without it I would not have had a clue as to how to bypass PT's IP address ban. <<
So, you gave them the promise without having a reason to.<<<<<<<
I was just showing my gratitude for getting the information -- people should not bite the hand that feeds them.
>>>>>There banishment of you was neither unethical nor arbitrary. Your misbehavior required it. They have rules, you flagrantly violated them.<<<<<<
As I have pointed out for the umpteenth zillionth time, I was banned before I violated any of the rules. What motive would I have for risking censorship by breaking the rules? Why would I risk censorship of comments that I spend a long time preparing? Why would I want to be banned from what is probably the biggest evolution blog on the Internet? Also, Ed Brayton banned me from Dispatches without even claiming that I violated any rules -- he just did not like me because I disagreed with him.
<<<<<>> Those folks in India keep up on their skills, too. <<
So what's your excuse for not having job now?<<<<<<
Look, you are really getting personal now. That is strictly my business. No one ever taught you manners.
>>>>>First you say I'm using the term perjoratively, now when I point out that it was YOU who did so, you try to make an issue that I "did not complain" about your "perjorative use of the term."<<<<<<
No, it was I who first pointed out that my use of the term "hacker" was pejorative. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it is a common pejorative use of the term and there is no need to point out when someone uses it pejoratively.
>> Another dissertation from that stupid moron, Rob Serrano ( Friday, June 09, 2006 4:32:27 AM ) -- <<
As the regent of the ignoramuses, you should talk.
>> >>>>>>< I interpreted Jones' statements literally -- you did not. <<
>>>>>Well, let me see, how about we start with the definition of Deism, the belief shared by many of the Founding Fathers: "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation."<<<<< <<
>> That is not a complete definition of Deism -- according to Wikipedia, Deism includes the teleological argument of design. <<
Which is irrelevant, since it does nothing to refute what I said. The important aspect of Deism is notion of religion as a function of one's reason (individual), rather than through revelation (collective). But please, do keep grinding those gears.
>> Jefferson and Franklin -- and maybe also Madison and Washington -- are believed to have been Deists. We don't know much about many of the other founding fathers -- 39 men signed the Constitution. <<
The exact number of Founding Fathers who held whatever religious notions is largely dependent on what one chooses to believe. It ranges from almost none to almost all, depending on your particular political bent. Strange how, in cases such as this where there is some controversy, you don't go running around frothing at the mouth about how we should "teach the controversy." Apparently, it's only things which are beyond your comprehension that you want controversy to be taught, even when there really isn't one.
>> Also, there is no evidence that the founding fathers would have approved arbitrary censorship of ideas, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Anyway, we are not bound by all the thoughts of the founding fathers. <<
Non sequitur.
>> >>>>>You still haven't contradicted what I said. All you've done is tried to distract from discrepancy in the level of knowledge between Judge Jones, who can be viewed as relatively authoritative, and yourself, who can be viewed as relatively ignorant of US Law and history.<<<<< <<
>> On the contrary, Jones' commencement speech at Dickinson showed him to be an utter ignoramus about history and philosophy. I'm surprised he was apparently not booed. <<
Funny, I can say pretty much the same thing about your writing. I could also add, with little fear of contradiction that you are an unjustifiably angry little nit, and an overgrown spoiled brat.
>> Also, I pointed out that Jones said that his statements were based on his undergraduate education and not on his law education. <<
Now, I know that this is difficult for you to understand, being that your thinking seems to have become fixed at about the age of six with no further growth since then, but people's thinking continues to evolve even if the basis of their core beliefs is already in place. A liberal arts education, being fairly broad based and including history, law (especially for pre-law programs) and the humanities and social science in general would have exposed Judge Jones to a broader range of topics in those areas at a greater depth than you have thus far managed to exhibit.
>> >>>>>From all that I'm hearing your claim of authority comes from losing in court and whining about how you wuz robbed becase they were all out to get you.<<<<< <<
>> Well, I WUZ robbed. Neither the California's attorney nor the judge even attempted to counter my claim that the state had forfeited immunity from tax suits in federal courts by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" (with a citation of a Supreme Court opinion) when the state enacted a tax that was entirely based on the state's unique status under federal auto emissions laws. No other state could have enacted such a tax, and therefore California was not being co-equal with the other states when it enacted the tax. If I had been an attorney, my argument would have been regarded as a stroke of genius (as I pointed out, some attorneys who also tried to sue in federal court failed to make this same argument). <<
There you go again, crybabying along like that's going to suddenly make you sound like less of a sore loser.
>> Credentials are not supposed to win debates -- either on the Internet or in the courts. <<
When you present nothing of substance to support your case besides namecalling and a shameful inability to read for comprehension -- and you, Larry, have shown nothing but -- what else is anyone supposed to go on? You want me to believe that it was some conspiracy of actual lawyers and judges to keep you from winning your case, you're going to have to do a damn site more than proclaim the genius of your arguments. Because, frankly, Larry, you've already established to my satisfaction that your estimation of yourself is artificially inflated beyond all hope of reason.
>> >>>>>You have yet to demonstrate that this supposed "hostility" on Judge Jones towards religion even exists except in your bizarro-world fantasies.<<<<< <<
>> I said that Jones was hostile towards organized religion -- he said in his speech,
"The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." "Something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible" is a reference to organized religion. Saying that the statement represents hostility towards organized religion is the only reasonable interpretation. I don't see why you have such a problem with that interpretation. <<
Because your interpretation is bull. You make all these asinine assumptions in your "argument" that you seem utterly incapable of realizing how much of what you're reading into what he said simply doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. He is arguing that religion is personal, not something to be imposed. Nothing in what he said indicates that reason cannot lead you into organized religion, that is your fetish.
>> >>>>>Given that the pro-IDists didn't have a problem with Judge Jones until they lost the case. Your opinion on Judge Jones before his ruling is unrecorded as far as I can see, <<<<< <<
>> When the trial was in progress, I could not comment much because I didn't know enough about the case. Later I found a lot of things that Jones did wrong during the trial -- see my article "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in the Dover Intelligent Design case." And what is wrong with criticizing Jones' rulings? You Darwinists have this strange idea that his rulings are above criticism. <<
I have no problem with valid criticism. Your "criticism," though, is not valid, consisting of your spewing of a rancid combination of refuted assertions and ID talking points. Oh, and your feeble attempt to turn "Darwinist" into some sort of insult, which just shows even more fully, the complete and total emptiness of your arguments.
>> >>>>>You know, it's kind of unfortunate, that one of the few sensible things that you've said in this thread is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand, since no one has been arguing that we should all just follow, lemming-like, everything that the Founding Fathers said. <<<<< <<
>> Jones essentially said that we should follow the Founding Fathers in a "lemming-like" manner. His speech abjectly praised the Founding Fathers -- he said, "Remember that Thomas Jefferson, throughout his life, accumulated a library of almost ten thousand books. George Washington died with nearly a thousand volumes in his collection. These gentlemen read voraciously, including daily newspapers and periodicals. Now, I don't mean to compare myself with either of these men, but at age fifty my night stand is stacked with books on many subjects, I read several newspapers each day, and numerous magazines each week. And just like you, I also consume information and news on-line." . <<
Again, you still seem to be having difficulty with this whole reading comprehension thing. Once again, you're asserting that Judge Jones is saying things that are obviously NOT present in the text you are quoting. But then, you seem to be terribly confused between the concepts of "realizing that the Founding Fathers were a product of their time and not perfect," and "completely dismissing everything the Founding Fathers said and did because they were a product of their time and not perfect." You see, the former is a rational belief, while the latter is completely and totally irrational like the Stephen Colbert gag about doing away with Mother's Day because Hitler had a Mother (note for those without the sense to actually read it, Godwin's Law does not apply because I am not comparing anyone to Hitler and besides, Larry already long since lost on Godwin's Law violations).
>> <<<<<<>> Wrong. It was very easy to bypass this blockage by using anonymous proxies. <<
You're not there anymore, are you?<<<<<< <<
>> The reason for that is that I figured it was a waste of time posting dissident comments where they were likely to be deleted. <<
In other words, their actions had the desired effect. And stop trying the garner sympathy for your banishment. You were banned for good reason because of your unwillingness to follow their rules. They have even banned pro-Evolution people for breaking their rules, which have nothing to do with having a contrary opinion, so, once again, you declare your martyrdom without a shred of evidence to support it.
>> >>>>>Many ISPs and most corporate e-mail servers provide Blacklist services.<<<<< <<
>> It is unethical to offer or use blacklist services, as blacklists can hurt legitimate Internet users as well as illegitimate ones. <<
Wow, talk about arrogant. You don't run a server and apparently have no knowledge whatsoever about what you are speaking, and yet you feel that it is your place to dictate what is and is not ethical for people who do run servers to do. As a server administrator, it would be unethical for me to allow malicious traffic into or through my site, so I use blacklists to diminish the bandwidth consumption from amoral slugs such as yourself. Again, another instance where you have no foundation on which to base your opinion except for your extremely selfish belief that if it might effect you (Larry) negatively then it must somehow be recast as unethical.
I've got news for you, Larry, not only are blacklist services ethical, they are becoming more and more standard practice.
>> >>>>>> If your e-mail has gone through any open proxies, it can be blocked, and many sites will do so. It's a very simple mechanism.<<<<<< <<
>> Normally, only my ISP and the proxy will know that I sent a message through an anonymous proxy, if they keep records. My ISP is not supposed to divulge information about me except for legitimate purposes of law enforcement. <<
Have you ever actually read an e-mail message, Larry. I mean the headers, not just the body text the the subject line? Every server an e-mail goes through on its way from sender to recipient, tags the message with a line indicating what server received it and where it came from. I need go no further back than the first recipient that is a known open proxy to simply block the message in whatever way I see fit. If I know who you are and I suspect you are scuzzing around like this, I send a nice little e-mail to your ISP's complaints people with all of the e-mails that I have received from you.
>> <<<<<>> There you go again with this contempt for children. <<
Incorrect. I have contempt for you. You are an overgrown child, but you no more represent children as a group than Peter Pan does.<<<<<<< <<
>> You and Colin are the only ones I have ever seen trying to insult people by comparing them to children, e.g., "you no-good so and so, you're nothing but a child!" Remember -- it was a child who pointed out that the ermperor had no clothes. <<
Again, in your case the emperor is wearing clothes and you are just the child who thinks it funny to keep saying he isn't. You see, children lack maturity and the ability to rationally judge things around them, much like you do. Hence the comparison of you with children is quite apt. The difference is that we expect that lack of maturity from children, but we expect them to grow out of it by the time they become adults. You, on the other hand, not only do not appear to have reached any level of maturity, you seem to revel in your childishness.
>> >>>>>And yet they still managed to stop you.<<<<<<< <<
>> No, PT never managed to block my comments. <<
You're not there anymore.
>> >>>>>>>> There is no way that you can get in legal trouble just for calling up a website on the Internet. <<
When going through a proxy, you are not just "calling up a website." If you were knowledgeable about the internet, you would know that. When you go through a proxy, you are using that proxy's resources for your own ends. If you are tromping through a corporate server that happens to have been left open, you can be a deep trouble.<<<<<<< <<
>> There is nothing illegal about using anonymous proxies -- there are hundreds or even thousands of them on the Internet. If the proxy is doing something illegal without my knowledge, that is not my problem. <<
Ah yes, the Larry special, the argument from "there are lots of them." By your line of reasoning, selling crack is not illegal because there are "hundreds or even thousands of them." Larry, you have NO idea what the Hell you're talking about here, so I suggest you just hush before you show everyone what a fool you are. It's not the proxy doing something illegal that I was talking about. Like I said, and like you were apparently unable to comprehend, with your infantile reading abilities, is that not all proxies have been deliberately set up as proxies. Why do you think that so many proxy lists absolve themselves of responsibility with disclaimers about the proxies on their lists? It's because they have no way of knowing anything more than that the proxy is available. They don't know who is providing the proxy or why or even if they are doing it deliberately. If you route your traffic through a proxy that has not been deliberately left open, the owner of that machine can, depending on the law in their area, sue you all over Hell and back.
This is just another case of you, like a child, not understanding that some things belong to other people and they have a right to expect that you will not try to steal their resources to fulfill your idiotic vendettas. But, then, apparently you are one of those people for whom "ethics" is just a word to be thrown around when convenient, even though you seemingly have no grasp of what it actually means. So basically, you're throwing a temper tantrum, and you're willing to force others into helping you.
>> Pretty soon you are going to be saying that email forwarding services are illegal because they hide the identity of the senders. <<
Nice attempt at constructing a strawman, Larry, but that's all it is. Which once again demonstrates your utter lack of anything resembling an actual argument.
>> >>>>>So, you're saying that even spammers don't want to send e-mail to you.<<<<<< <<
>> Wrong. Most spammers (the advertising kind) will send email to anyone. <<
And you think you're demonstrating some sort of awesome intellectual dexterity with that statement? Really, Larry, I've been in charge of setting up and maintaining company e-mail servers. I've seen more spam try to get past my filters in a week than you're likely to see in a year. My servers weathered the worst of the Sobig and sober worms without so much as a single client infection, lost e-mail or even a noticable slowdown of the servers. What have YOU done, Larry, besides bluster and spew about your opinions about how other should do things.
>> >>>>>But, seriously, it's better to not receive spam than to have to use a filter <<<<<< <<
>> Wrong. Desired messages are sometimes filtered as spam. AOL always gives me the opportunity to review filtered spam to see if there is anything I want. <<
Wow, such vehemence for a response that, once again, demonstrates your pathetic lack of reading ability. Here, let us repeat the point: It is better not to receive spam than to have to use a filter. How hard is this for you to understand, oh technoilliterate one? I mean, were you looking for some sort of Bible Code (which has been utterly debunked despite your hero, Dembski's belief in it) kind of thing, or are you simply being deliberate dimwitted again?
Let me expand on the argument, in case you simply had difficulty seeing the screen because your sphincter was in the way: The best way to avoid spam is to not receive it in the first place. The idea is to try to minimize you exposure.
>> <<<<<>> I have used Internet Explorer to erase and block cookies, but the anonymous proxies also offer cookie blockage. <<
Since I'm talking about the "features" these proxies provide, you're basically repeating what I said.<<<<<< <<
>> My pointing out that I use Internet Explorer to manage spam was not a repetition of what you said. <<
First of all, IE doesn't manage spam as it is not an e-mail client. If you are using web-mail to manage spam, it is the server that is managing the spam, not IE. Second of all, we were talking about blocking cookies, which I specifically mentioned is a web-browser feature. Since IE is (arguably) a web-browser, it was implied in my statement, so all you did was repeat what I said.
>> >>>>First, how did you get from anonymous to secure?<<<<< <<
>> I didn't.<<
Apparently you did, since you brought up "secure communications."<<<<<< <<
>> I don't remember exactly who first brought up "secure communications" (it does not really matter), but I was just pointing out that using anonymous proxies does not necessarily provide secure communications. I used the example of wiretapping. <<
You brought up "secure communications" and it does matter because security and anonymity are not the same thing.
>> <<<<<>> I presume that wiretapping technology is sufficiently sophisticated that you cannot sneak a message through when no one is watching. <<
Boy, you truly are clueless. First, whatever authority has to know, or suspect, that you are going to send a particular message.<<<<<< <<
>> Of course -- they have to wiretap you first. But what I am saying is that listening can be automated. <<
Not to someone truly determined to hide the message they are sending. Read up on the history of Cryptography someday, preferably tracing back to its earliest roots. A truly skilled cryptographer could disguise a message in such a way as to appear as something completely innocuous.
>> <<<<<>> I have not given out personal information to these sites. <<
Then you shouldn't have mentioned Identity Theft, should you?<<<<<< <<
>> You were the one who brought up the issue of identity theft by claiming that theft of personal data is one of the risks of using anonymous proxies. <<
I didn't mention Identity Theft at all. That was YOUR insertion.
[quote]
>>>>And of course, I haven't even mentioned the fun if the proxy you happen to try to go through is part of a zombie botnet, in which case you run the risk of joining the botnet. <<<<<
All Internet users are threatened with things like viruses and identity theft -- you cannot protect yourself just by avoiding anonymous proxies.
[/quote]
YOU are the one who introduced Identity Theft here, as can plainly be seen. Seriously, Larry, do you ever read your own prose, or do even you find your lies and bullshit to be somewhat nauseating?
>> <<<<< >> I did not promise UD anything until after I got the information. And the tip was not of marginal worth -- without it I would not have had a clue as to how to bypass PT's IP address ban. <<
So, you gave them the promise without having a reason to.<<<<<<< <<
>> I was just showing my gratitude for getting the information -- people should not bite the hand that feeds them. <<
This goes beyond gratitude, Larry. You prostituted yourself for no reason. Whatever integrity you would like to claim for yourself, you've sold for a dubious piece of information.
>> >>>>>There banishment of you was neither unethical nor arbitrary. Your misbehavior required it. They have rules, you flagrantly violated them.<<<<<< <<
>> As I have pointed out for the umpteenth zillionth time, I was banned before I violated any of the rules. What motive would I have for risking censorship by breaking the rules? Why would I risk censorship of comments that I spend a long time preparing? Why would I want to be banned from what is probably the biggest evolution blog on the Internet? Also, Ed Brayton banned me from Dispatches without even claiming that I violated any rules -- he just did not like me because I disagreed with him. <<
Yeah, yeah, I know, Larry. Nothing that happens to you has ever been your own fault, it's all because people are meanies and are out to get you, blah, blah, blah. Here's the world's smallest violin, I'm sure you know the rest by now.
Face the facts for once, Larry, and admit that what happened to you at PT is a consequence of your own actions. You broke the rules YOU pay the price. Period, end of story.
>> <<<<<>> Those folks in India keep up on their skills, too. <<
So what's your excuse for not having job now?<<<<<< <<
>> Look, you are really getting personal now. That is strictly my business. No one ever taught you manners. <<
Oh no, I have offended the mighty Larry. Whatever shall I do? What will he do to my stuff? Will he use an anonymous proxy to attack me, maybe he'll viciously... Oh wait, that's right, Larry doesn't actually know how to do a damn thing. Just more bluster from the king of "you meanies."
More seriously, Larry, if you can't take it, maybe you shouldn't be so willing to dish it out. Don't think I'm just going to remain polite in the face of your attacks, I will answer in kind, whether that hurts you itty bitty wittle feewings is completely and totally out of my realm of concern.
>> >>>>>First you say I'm using the term perjoratively, now when I point out that it was YOU who did so, you try to make an issue that I "did not complain" about your "perjorative use of the term."<<<<<< <<
>> No, it was I who first pointed out that my use of the term "hacker" was pejorative. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it is a common pejorative use of the term and there is no need to point out when someone uses it pejoratively. <<
Actually, you tried to accuse ME of using the term pejoratively after I had gone on at length about the good things real hackers (as opposed to poseurs such as yourself) have done. You see, Larry, and here is one of those great life lessons for you, I don't use the term "hacker" in a negative sense. Period. You did, you got caught at it and now you lie to cover your ass. Kind of sad considering your high opinion of yourself.
Rob Serrano said ( June 09, 2006 5:06:04 AM ) --
>> >> >>>>"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein
A truly insane person would flip the coin only once and conclude that there can be only one result.
An insane person ....... does not flip the coin once and assume that result holds forever.<<<<<
Why not? The person's insane, right?
Similarly insane Darwinists believe that because ID was supposedly "refuted" 50 years ago, they need never again consider any challenges to Darwinism.
>> Rob Serrano said ( June 09, 2006 5:06:04 AM ) --
>> >> >>>>"Insanity: The belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing" - Albert Einstein
A truly insane person would flip the coin only once and conclude that there can be only one result.
An insane person ....... does not flip the coin once and assume that result holds forever.<<<<<
Why not? The person's insane, right?
Similarly insane Darwinists believe that because ID was supposedly "refuted" 50 years ago, they need never again consider any challenges to Darwinism. <<
Wow, there's a whole lotta nothing coming from you, Larry.
But on to the closest thing you have to a fish in this barrel. Evolutionist actually do research and have been discovering new things about the mechanisms and history of evolution. If ID had actually managed to come up with any substance in the past 50 years, there might be discussion about it. But there is nothing from ID besides the deranged and dishonest claims by agendized idiots who sole purpose in life is to pretend that their religion should be considered science. ID has no theory. It doesn't even have any real ideas behind it. It is simply amazingly bone-headed mathematics deliberately obfuscated to make it appear that it actually says something, and an assertion by a dubious microbiologist that some things cannot evolve and therefore God did it. Never mind that the former has been readily debunked over and over again because of it's pathetic sloppiness. Never mind that the former refuses to actually argue his case in any forum where his sycophants are not in control, because his case is ultimately unarguable to anyone even slightly smarter than you are. Never mind that the former will never produce anything like a theory because he considers that a "pathetic level of detail," meaning that he has nothing to present. Never mind that the latter has been refuted by having evolutionary pathways to these entities discovered through experimentation. Never mind that the proponent of the latter stated on the stand that, according to his standards, Astrology would count as science. Never mind that, for a supposed "science" ID proponents have a difficult time NOT mentioning God and calling opponents of ID "atheists."
No, the most telling feature of the whole ID movement is that it is a fund-raising scam at its basest level, designed to suck money from people like you, who think that you're entitled to an opinion on everything whether you possess actual knowledge of it or not.
IDists, and people like you also are incapable of performing a really important step in proposing you "god" argument: Define the characteristics of God and determine a means by which they can be measured. Omnipotent? How can you determine that something is omnipotent? How do you determine that something actually has no limit to what it can do, as opposed to having limits you, as a human being can measure? Omniscient? How can you tell that something knows everything, as opposed to just knowing more than you know? Even the spaceman idea is not immune from having to answer these questions. In order for ID to ever be able to claim that it is science, it must define the characteristics of this creator and be able to test them. It cannot do that, so it is not science.
In other words, for the slower ones out there, ID is not science because it is incapable of doing ny of the things that science requires. It's shamanic ritualism at it's heart ("Pray, and we'll get rain." "It didn't rain." "Well you didn't pray right."), offering up nothing but puffery in its own defense.
And the worst offense made by ID is that, as lacking as it is in regards to being science, it is even worse philosophy. It is purely an argument from ignorance and it deserves no respect whatsoever.
Reply to post of Rob Serrano ( 6/09/2006 08:01:48 PM ) --
And yet another harangue from Rob Serrano. There is no end to them -- they are breaking all records for length and asininity. For someone who says that I am a nobody, he is spending an awful lot of time and effort responding to me. Well, I have just about run out of patience with him, so I will keep my responses to him fairly short.
First -- the on-topic subject.
It is apparent that Judge Jones' Dover decision was influenced by his views about the issues of the founding fathers' religious beliefs and the establishment clause's original intent, which were not regarded as issues in the case, and I think that it was improper of Judge Jones to consider these issues because they were never debated by the litigants and also because I think that these issues should never be considered in establishment clause cases (so far as establishment clause cases are concerned, who cares about the founding fathers' religious beliefs or their purposes in creating the establishment clause?). Judge Jones should have just stuck to the literal meaning of the establishment clause without adding his own embellishments like his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause.
Now for some other stuff --
>>>>>Every server an e-mail goes through on its way from sender to recipient, tags the message with a line indicating what server received it and where it came from.<<<<<
If a user of an "anonymous" proxy can be traced, then the proxy is not anonymous. I presume that a proxy called hidemyass.com would live up to its name.
Anyway, I do not send emails through the proxies -- I use the proxies to access websites. Also, I presume that email forwarding services are also trackless, and I am considering subscribing to one to heighten my anonymity.
>>>>>> I need go no further back than the first recipient that is a known open proxy to simply block the message in whatever way I see fit.<<<<<
Panda's Thumb repeatedly blocked the static IP addresses of anonymous proxies that I was using (the better anonymous proxies are supposed to use dynamic IP addresses). No problem -- I just switched to another anonymous proxy (there are hundreds, at least).
>>>>>Like I said, and like you were apparently unable to comprehend, with your infantile reading abilities, is that not all proxies have been deliberately set up as proxies.<<<<<
Even if it has not been deliberately set up as a proxy, why should anyone care if I use it as a proxy?
>>>>> Here, let us repeat the point: It is better not to receive spam than to have to use a filter.<<<<
Well, we just disagree on this. I do not want to miss a desired email that might be filtered out as spam. I am happy that AOL puts filtered spam in a separate folder rather than mixing it up with the rest of my emails.
<<<<<>> My pointing out that I use Internet Explorer to manage spam was not a repetition of what you said. <<
we were talking about blocking cookies, which I specifically mentioned is a web-browser feature<<<<<<
I meant manage "cookies," not manage "spam." Sorry about that -- I get so tired and bored responding to your asinine posts that I sometimes forget what I was talking about.
>>>>>A truly skilled cryptographer could disguise a message in such a way as to appear as something completely innocuous.<<<<<<
Only the very simplest messages could be sent in that way, and the sender would have to have a prior arrangement with the recipient regarding the interpretation of the message.
>>>>>Whatever integrity you would like to claim for yourself, you've sold for a dubious piece of information.<<<<<<
I didn't "sell" anything -- my promise to not publicly criticize UD was a gift of appreciation from me.
In conclusion -- yes, I must admit that I am ignorant of all subjects -- science, law, religion, philosophy, history, Internet operation, etc.. You name subject, and I am completely ignorant of it -- I am never right.
> I will keep my responses to him fairly short. <
(followed by a long harangue)
> his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause. <
There seems to be a great gulf here between what Jones says and what you think he said.
> I do not want to miss a desired email that might be filtered out as spam. <
Do you get a lot of spam at LarryFarma@aol.com?
> I sometimes forget what I was talking about. <
You rarely know what you are talking about!
> You name subject, and I am completely ignorant of it -- I am never right. <
Confession is good for the soul.
>> And yet another harangue from Rob Serrano. There is no end to them -- they are breaking all records for length and asininity. For someone who says that I am a nobody, he is spending an awful lot of time and effort responding to me. Well, I have just about run out of patience with him, so I will keep my responses to him fairly short. <<
Awwwe, did the big bad mean old me hurt wittew Warry's Feewings? It's just too bad that the mean old reality hates you so much, isn't it, Larry?
First -- the on-topic subject.
>> It is apparent that Judge Jones' Dover decision was influenced by his views about the issues of the founding fathers' religious beliefs and the establishment clause's original intent, which were not regarded as issues in the case, and I think that it was improper of Judge Jones to consider these issues because they were never debated by the litigants and also because I think that these issues should never be considered in establishment clause cases (so far as establishment clause cases are concerned, who cares about the founding fathers' religious beliefs or their purposes in creating the establishment clause?). Judge Jones should have just stuck to the literal meaning of the establishment clause without adding his own embellishments like his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause. <<
Truth by Blatant assertion. Once again, Larry, you need to learn that just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is actually true
Now for some other stuff --
>> >>>>>Every server an e-mail goes through on its way from sender to recipient, tags the message with a line indicating what server received it and where it came from.<<<<< <<
>> If a user of an "anonymous" proxy can be traced, then the proxy is not anonymous. I presume that a proxy called hidemyass.com would live up to its name. <<
For my purposes, all I need is to track you back to the proxy. Once there, I can trivially reject your message without it ever actually touching my server (you receive the bounced message). If I want to track back further, there are ways to do so, but I'll leave it to you to sweat that one.
>> Anyway, I do not send emails through the proxies -- I use the proxies to access websites. Also, I presume that email forwarding services are also trackless, and I am considering subscribing to one to heighten my anonymity. <<
I can still block them in the same way. Should I desire to do so I can also track you through them. Also, since I already know who you are, and I know your writing style, and I know your ISP, I can just complain to AOL's admins (I also have an account with them) if I receive email from you. Since you are running through their gateways, they could track you if they wanted to.
>> >>>>>> I need go no further back than the first recipient that is a known open proxy to simply block the message in whatever way I see fit.<<<<< <<
>> Panda's Thumb repeatedly blocked the static IP addresses of anonymous proxies that I was using (the better anonymous proxies are supposed to use dynamic IP addresses). No problem -- I just switched to another anonymous proxy (there are hundreds, at least). <<
And if I simply block every open proxy on those lists? Again, you think you're being clever, but you're really not. It really wouldn't be that difficult to whip up a script that rips through their proxy list -- which, again, is public -- and blocks all of the listed proxies from accessing my site.
>> >>>>>Like I said, and like you were apparently unable to comprehend, with your infantile reading abilities, is that not all proxies have been deliberately set up as proxies.<<<<< <<
>> Even if it has not been deliberately set up as a proxy, why should anyone care if I use it as a proxy? <<
Typical larry-think, "it's there, why should they care if I use it without their permission?" If you find a car that's not yours, parked in a parking lot, with the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition, do you have a right to simply take it? By your logic you would. Much like the car example, you act like the server's owners shouldn't care if you use their machines without their permission. You are using their property and their resources, which they, and not you, pay for and you are doing so without so much as asking for permission. When your machine becomes part of the zombie bot-net, don't come whining about how your machine was hijacked, because you've already stated that you believe that this type of resource theft is just fine. And you wonder why I call you a nit.
>> >>>>> Here, let us repeat the point: It is better not to receive spam than to have to use a filter.<<<< <<
>> Well, we just disagree on this. I do not want to miss a desired email that might be filtered out as spam. I am happy that AOL puts filtered spam in a separate folder rather than mixing it up with the rest of my emails. <<
You disagree because you don't comprehend, which is not a big surprise since you don't seem to be capable of comprehending much of anything that has been discussed here.
Here, let me boil down the exchange so you might figure out where you're going wrong:
Me: It is better to not receive spam than to HAVE TO rely on filters.
You: I do not want to miss a desired email that might be filtered out as spam.
You see the disconnect here, Larry? In case it still flew right by you, I'm saying it is better to not have to use filters at all. As this all came in the context of e-mail address obfuscation, I am saying that it is better for the spammers to never get your name in the first place, hence not receiving spam. What is it about you and context, that you seem to hate it so? Did a wild context attack you when you were a child? Half of your efforts seem concentrated on your efforts to remove context from whatever you're quoting.
>> <<<<<>> My pointing out that I use Internet Explorer to manage spam was not a repetition of what you said. <<
we were talking about blocking cookies, which I specifically mentioned is a web-browser feature<<<<<< <<
>> I meant manage "cookies," not manage "spam." Sorry about that -- I get so tired and bored responding to your asinine posts that I sometimes forget what I was talking about. <<
Let us return some context that was snipped by you:
[quote]
First of all, IE doesn't manage spam as it is not an e-mail client. If you are using web-mail to manage spam, it is the server that is managing the spam, not IE. Second of all, we were talking about blocking cookies, which I specifically mentioned is a web-browser feature. Since IE is (arguably) a web-browser, it was implied in my statement, so all you did was repeat what I said.
[/quote]
(emphasis added)
You didn't even really answer what was stated. Why is that, Larry? Could it be that you really are just shamefully dishonest?
>> >>>>>A truly skilled cryptographer could disguise a message in such a way as to appear as something completely innocuous.<<<<<< <<
>> Only the very simplest messages could be sent in that way, and the sender would have to have a prior arrangement with the recipient regarding the interpretation of the message. <<
Still more hand-waving and assertions from you, Larry.
First of all, most cryptographic methods require an agreement between senders and recipients. Usually, in today's world, that means giving out your public key so people can decrypt messages you send to them. Let's say I'm writing an e-mail to a friend, and I sign it using a cryptographic signature. Normally this signature consists of an encrypted version of the body of the message. But what if I insert a custom signature from another message, instead. The authorities don't know my public key anyway, so they most likely won't be any the wiser (you can't stop what you don't know you should stop). Or what if I break my message into pieces encode the pieces and provide an encoded method by which the pieces can be decoded and reassembled.
There are more ways of encoding information so that it doesn't look suspicious, so please, once again, do not mistake your lack of imagination for truth.
>> >>>>>Whatever integrity you would like to claim for yourself, you've sold for a dubious piece of information.<<<<<< <<
>> I didn't "sell" anything -- my promise to not publicly criticize UD was a gift of appreciation from me. <<
Again, you sold what you call your "integrity" for a piece of information that you could have gleaned by using Google. Talk about selling cheap.
>> In conclusion -- yes, I must admit that I am ignorant of all subjects -- science, law, religion, philosophy, history, Internet operation, etc.. You name subject, and I am completely ignorant of it -- I am never right. <<
It's becoming more and more obvious that this is the truth, so it's good to hear you take that first step and admit to it.
>> > I will keep my responses to him fairly short. < <<
>> (followed by a long harangue) <<
You have to keep in mind that when Larry says he will keep it short, what he usually means he will vigorously snip all of the context out of whatever he's responding to while spewing such volumes of bile that Noah'd feel a sense of deja vu.
>> > I do not want to miss a desired email that might be filtered out as spam. < <<
>> Do you get a lot of spam at LarryFarma@aol.com? <<
Probably. He strikes me as the kind of person who views junk mail as personal validation.
> Awwwe, did the big bad mean old me hurt wittew Warry's Feewings?<
His mother called him Woogl when he was a baby and even does sometimes even now. Since he is acting like a baby, I would suggest that it is a good name for him.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/11/2006 01:42:59 AM ) --
<<<<<<<>> It is apparent that Judge Jones' Dover decision was influenced by his views about the issues of the founding fathers' religious beliefs and the establishment clause's original intent, which were not regarded as issues in the case, and I think that it was improper of Judge Jones to consider these issues because they were never debated by the litigants and also because I think that these issues should never be considered in establishment clause cases (so far as establishment clause cases are concerned, who cares about the founding fathers' religious beliefs or their purposes in creating the establishment clause?). Judge Jones should have just stuck to the literal meaning of the establishment clause without adding his own embellishments like his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause. <<
Truth by Blatant assertion. Once again, Larry, you need to learn that just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is actually true>>>>>>>>
Look at that -- you ducked my one on-topic comment!
I will elaborate. Can you find anywhere in the case records -- the briefs, oral arguments, the trial testimony, the expert witness reports, the depositions, the exhibits, or anywhere else -- where these issues that were major factors in Jones' decision -- i.e., the "true religion" of the founding fathers, his belief that this "true religion" was their major if not sole motivation for adding the establishment clause, and the issue of whether those two issues should be considered at all -- were discussed? Indeed, Jones does not even discuss these issues in the opinion! Should Jones' decision have been influenced by considerations that were extraneous to the case? If the Dover decision had been appealed, could the school board have cited Jones' commencement speech statements as a reason to overturn the decision? Maybe judges themselves should be put on the witness stand to determine their biases and prejudices.
>>>>>>Also, since I already know who you are, and I know your writing style, and I know your ISP, I can just complain to AOL's admins (I also have an account with them) if I receive email from you.<<<<<<
ISP's are supposed to be very careful about protecting the privacy of their customers -- complaining to them probably would not do any good. And they would certainly have to get complaints from many different sources before even considering taking any kind of action.
Also, government efforts to require ISP's to keep records of users' communications is a big privacy issue now.
>>>>>And if I simply block every open proxy on those lists? <<<<<<
For starters, I don't think that "open proxy" is necessarily the correct term here -- the term should be "anonymous proxy." An "open" proxy is basically a proxy open to anyone, whereas "anonymous" proxies have special features -- e.g., encoding and blocking cookies and scripts -- that are intended to ensure anonymity. Also, some anonymous proxies are not really completely "open" because users have to pay for them. As for blocking every proxy on the lists, the better proxies are supposed to use dynamic IP addressing and so cannot be blocked by means of IP addresses. Also, Panda's Thumb has obviously not figured out how to block all proxies with static IP addresses, because as soon as PT blocked a proxy I was using, I just switched to another.
<<<<<>> Even if it has not been deliberately set up as a proxy, why should anyone care if I use it as a proxy? <<
Typical larry-think, "it's there, why should they care if I use it without their permission?" If you find a car that's not yours, parked in a parking lot, with the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition, do you have a right to simply take it? <<<<<
LOL -- comparing unauthorized use of a proxy to stealing a car! LMAO
Maybe we could coin a new Internet term for unauthorized use of proxies -- "joy-surfing" -- analogous to "joy-riding" in stolen cars.
>>>>> You didn't even really answer what was stated. Why is that, Larry? Could it be that you really are just shamefully dishonest?<<<<<<
I wasn't being "dishonest" -- I just ignored your statement because you started to talk about "spam," which showed that you did not realize that I meant "cookies" and not "spam." Anyway, the purpose of my original statement was just to show that I was already aware of methods of cookie management other than anonymous proxies. And BTW, you have ignored my statements plenty of times but I did not call you "shamefully dishonest."
>>>>>First of all, most cryptographic methods require an agreement between senders and recipients. Usually, in today's world, that means giving out your public key so people can decrypt messages you send to them.<<<<<<
An encrypted message does not look innocuous. 'We were talking about messages that look innocuous.
<<<<<<>> I didn't "sell" anything -- my promise to not publicly criticize UD was a gift of appreciation from me. <<
Again, you sold what you call your "integrity" for a piece of information that you could have gleaned by using Google. Talk about selling cheap.>>>>>>
"Googling" information is not always easy -- you often have to first know what to "Google." Sure, if you already know about anonymous proxies, you can use Google to find out more information about them.
Congratulations! You are starting to get some intelligent statements in your posts. Specifically where you quote Rod and Kevin. Of course the stuff that you write yourself is still mindless trash.
>> <<<<<<<>> It is apparent that Judge Jones' Dover decision was influenced by his views about the issues of the founding fathers' religious beliefs and the establishment clause's original intent, which were not regarded as issues in the case, and I think that it was improper of Judge Jones to consider these issues because they were never debated by the litigants and also because I think that these issues should never be considered in establishment clause cases (so far as establishment clause cases are concerned, who cares about the founding fathers' religious beliefs or their purposes in creating the establishment clause?). Judge Jones should have just stuck to the literal meaning of the establishment clause without adding his own embellishments like his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause. <<
Truth by Blatant assertion. Once again, Larry, you need to learn that just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is actually true>>>>>>>> <<
>> Look at that -- you ducked my one on-topic comment!
I will elaborate. Can you find anywhere in the case records -- the briefs, oral arguments, the trial testimony, the expert witness reports, the depositions, the exhibits, or anywhere else -- where these issues that were major factors in Jones' decision -- i.e., the "true religion" of the founding fathers, his belief that this "true religion" was their major if not sole motivation for adding the establishment clause, and the issue of whether those two issues should be considered at all -- were discussed? Indeed, Jones does not even discuss these issues in the opinion! Should Jones' decision have been influenced by considerations that were extraneous to the case? If the Dover decision had been appealed, could the school board have cited Jones' commencement speech statements as a reason to overturn the decision? Maybe judges themselves should be put on the witness stand to determine their biases and prejudices. <<
I don't need to find anything, Larry, since I've already refuted your claim. Maybe you should take a remedial course in logic, it would probably do wonders for you.
To clear things up for you, YOU made the claim about Judge Jones' motiviations with no evidence supporting it. You simply asserted that your perception was the truth. Truth by assertion is not an acceptable form of argument, as I pointed out. Therefore the onus is on you to provide real backing for your claims. Your claim is refuted on it's face.
>> >>>>>>Also, since I already know who you are, and I know your writing style, and I know your ISP, I can just complain to AOL's admins (I also have an account with them) if I receive email from you.<<<<<< <<
>> ISP's are supposed to be very careful about protecting the privacy of their customers -- complaining to them probably would not do any good. And they would certainly have to get complaints from many different sources before even considering taking any kind of action.
Also, government efforts to require ISP's to keep records of users' communications is a big privacy issue now. <<
Once again, you know not of what you speak. Mostly, this is a result of your rampant ignorance in general. Plus, your penchant for adding irrelevant information to make yourself seem like you actually know something, is really kind of quaint, in a sort of "see I know big words" kind of way.
Let's see if you can understand this: If I prevent you from sending something to me and I can show that you responded by trying to use proxies to get around that block, all I need to do is gather up all the incriminating messages, package them up with a note complaining about this unethical behavior on your part and send it to the abuse desk at your ISP. The vast majority of ISPs (including AOL if they don't want to lose more customers) do not look too kindly on these sorts of abuses and will investigate and likely take action.
BTW there is no privacy concern on their part if I say to them that Larry Fafarman, username LarryFarma has been engaging in such and so activities.
>> >>>>>And if I simply block every open proxy on those lists? <<<<<< <<
>> For starters, I don't think that "open proxy" is necessarily the correct term here -- the term should be "anonymous proxy." An "open" proxy is basically a proxy open to anyone, whereas "anonymous" proxies have special features -- e.g., encoding and blocking cookies and scripts -- that are intended to ensure anonymity. Also, some anonymous proxies are not really completely "open" because users have to pay for them. As for blocking every proxy on the lists, the better proxies are supposed to use dynamic IP addressing and so cannot be blocked by means of IP addresses. Also, Panda's Thumb has obviously not figured out how to block all proxies with static IP addresses, because as soon as PT blocked a proxy I was using, I just switched to another. <<
The terminology is irrelevant, Larry, but open proxy is the correct term here because you're not using a paid proxy, are you? But notice that the proxy list hosted by hidemyass.com changes over time as proxies are removed from or added to the list. That, in and of itself, should tell you something, Larry. That, and the disclaimer: "We can not be responsible for external proxy sites." In other words, Larry, all they know is that the IP address in question is hosting an open proxy, and they have some idea of what kind of proxy it is. They know nothing more than that, nor do they accept responsibility for anything more than that. You can do reverse lookups on many of the proxies on that list and there are quite a few corporate sites listed therein, many of whom would likely not deliberately setup an open proxy.
>> <<<<<>> Even if it has not been deliberately set up as a proxy, why should anyone care if I use it as a proxy? <<
Typical larry-think, "it's there, why should they care if I use it without their permission?" If you find a car that's not yours, parked in a parking lot, with the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition, do you have a right to simply take it? <<<<< <<
>> LOL -- comparing unauthorized use of a proxy to stealing a car! LMAO
Maybe we could coin a new Internet term for unauthorized use of proxies -- "joy-surfing" -- analogous to "joy-riding" in stolen cars. <<
The analogy is entirely apt, Larry. You are stealing bandwidth and other resources from those who are actually paying for those resources. In some jurisdictions it is a crime to do this. But go ahead, Larry, explain to the owners of these resources how it can't be stealing because you're Larry and nothing you do is ever wrong. HAHAHAHA.
>> >>>>> You didn't even really answer what was stated. Why is that, Larry? Could it be that you really are just shamefully dishonest?<<<<<< <<
>> I wasn't being "dishonest" -- I just ignored your statement because you started to talk about "spam," which showed that you did not realize that I meant "cookies" and not "spam." Anyway, the purpose of my original statement was just to show that I was already aware of methods of cookie management other than anonymous proxies. And BTW, you have ignored my statements plenty of times but I did not call you "shamefully dishonest." <<
Once again, let us look at the original context:
[quote]
First of all, IE doesn't manage spam as it is not an e-mail client. If you are using web-mail to manage spam, it is the server that is managing the spam, not IE. Second of all, we were talking about blocking cookies, which I specifically mentioned is a web-browser feature. Since IE is (arguably) a web-browser, it was implied in my statement, so all you did was repeat what I said.
[/quote]
So, please, Larry, try to learn how to read. You just make your shameful dishonesty more obvious when you play games and try to pretend that things weren't said when they quite obviously were. It is painfully obvious that after spending all of two sentences talking about spam, which was what you mentioned in the comment to which I was referring, I then devote the rest of the paragraph to "cookies" and how your statement merely repeated what I said without adding anything.
>> >>>>>First of all, most cryptographic methods require an agreement between senders and recipients. Usually, in today's world, that means giving out your public key so people can decrypt messages you send to them.<<<<<< <<
>> An encrypted message does not look innocuous. 'We were talking about messages that look innocuous. <<
PGP signatures are so ubiquitous as to be inocuous. A PGP signature is an encrypted copy of the message containing the signature which, to anyone with your public key, can be decrypted to prove that you were the one who sent the message. Do you really believe that the "authorities" are going to intercept and try to decode every PGP signed e-mail?
And to reinstate the context you so dishonestly attempted to cut out:
[quote]
>>>>>A truly skilled cryptographer could disguise a message in such a way as to appear as something completely innocuous.<<<<<<
[/quote]
Hmm, let me see, here, it looks like I'm saying that an encrypted message can be made to look inocuous. Seriuously, Larry, have you and honesty ever been more than pen-pals. You seem to be woefully incapable of arguing anything unless you can distort what you're responding to. Again, so much for any "credibility" you may be able to lay claim to.
>> <<<<<<>> I didn't "sell" anything -- my promise to not publicly criticize UD was a gift of appreciation from me. <<
Again, you sold what you call your "integrity" for a piece of information that you could have gleaned by using Google. Talk about selling cheap.>>>>>> <<
>> "Googling" information is not always easy -- you often have to first know what to "Google." Sure, if you already know about anonymous proxies, you can use Google to find out more information about them. <<
Still makes you the moral equivalent of a $2 whore. "Hi, I'm Larry, I'm not afraid of saying anything about anyone. But if you talk to me, I'm yours." In your case, you've been turning tricks with the Devil (sorry, Dembski). Credibility == nil, Integrity == nil, looks like the race may be over for Larry the One-Trick Pony.
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
Nice colors. Keep up the good work. thnx!
»
Post a Comment
<< Home