Languedoc Diary blog invites guest posts
Details are here. Blogger Alan Fox is a member of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers, so you are assured that your post will get a fair hearing. The headline of Languedoc Diary says, "A place where IDers and Darwinists can post without the chance of arbitrary deletion (obscenity and spam excepted). Self-moderation is requested, no other moderation will be applied."
I do of course strongly disagree with Alan's statement, "Things have gone very quiet since the Kitzmiller decision. The Intelligent Design movement has been sidelined as a political force and, to date, there has been no serious attempt to justify in any real sense the claim that ID is scientific." On the contrary, the debate over ID and evolution is now hotter than ever and the Kitzmiller trial and decision added a lot of fuel to that debate.
I do of course strongly disagree with Alan's statement, "Things have gone very quiet since the Kitzmiller decision. The Intelligent Design movement has been sidelined as a political force and, to date, there has been no serious attempt to justify in any real sense the claim that ID is scientific." On the contrary, the debate over ID and evolution is now hotter than ever and the Kitzmiller trial and decision added a lot of fuel to that debate.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/25/2007 06:03:00 AM
34 Comments:
> Blogger Alan Fox is a member of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers, <
The only other member and that only after you begged him and he at first turned you down.
> so you are assured that your post will get a fair hearing. <
No. We are not.
How long will it be before he too begins arbitrary censorship under the guise that it is "gossip"?
If you want to see blogs where there is no arbitrary censorship, see Panda's Thumb or Dispatch From The Culture Wars. They only censor for good cause.
>>>>>If you want to see blogs where there is no arbitrary censorship, see Panda's Thumb or Dispatch From The Culture Wars. They only censor for good cause. <<<<<
So, ViW, why don't you ask the bloggers on those blogs to post guest articles written by you? That way you can be sure that there will be no arbitrary censorship of comments responding to your articles.
> So, ViW, why don't you ask the bloggers on those blogs to post guest articles written by you? <
I have. They did.
>>>>>> So, ViW, why don't you ask the bloggers on those blogs to post guest articles written by you? <
I have. They did. <<<<<
Really? Where? Or would that unmask your identity?
I rarely see guest articles on those blogs.
Better yet, why don't you start your own blog, like I did? You seem to think that writing blog articles is very easy. It is easy unless you want to attract a lot of readers. Unless you are already famous, most people are not interested in just reading your personal opinions. Little personal blogs are a dime a dozen and people are usually more interested in joining the big discussions on the more popular blogs than they are in reading the little personal blogs. So to attract readers you may have to do a tremendous amount of research, and even with a lot of research it is very hard to attract readers. I do a lot of research in writing blog articles here. A lot of blogs get more traffic solely or partly because the bloggers know somebody -- this is particularly true of the personal blogs of bloggers on Panda's Thumb. PT bloggers PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Jason Rosenhouse, Mike Dunford, Wesley Elsberry, Tara Smith, and maybe other PT bloggers have their own personal blogs and they often use PT to announce articles posted on their personal blogs. The unfair advantage that these PT bloggers have in attracting readers is one of the reasons for my proposed "fairness doctrine" for blogs, a prohibition of arbitrary censorship of blog comments. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that bloggers on the more popular blogs are more equal than others in regard to a right to influence public opinion. And I just want to remind you, ViW, that you are being two-faced by exploiting my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my proposal for a fairness doctrine for blogs (you even want to be allowed to gossip here about my private affairs}. You of all people ought to be one of the biggest supporters of my proposal for a fairness doctrine for blogs.
> You seem to think that writing blog articles is very easy. <
It is easy to write blog articles of the caliber of yours.
> Unless you are already famous, most people are not interested in just reading your personal opinions. <
How did these people become famous? Were they born that way? No. They write interesting articles and the word gets around. If they just bleat repetitively and close their minds to real discussion, people tire of them and they remain in obscurity.
> So to attract readers you may have to do a tremendous amount of research <
But your "research" appears to be only Googling the terms and then commenting on what you find without understanding it or even in possibly the majority of cases, without even reading it.
> and even with a lot of research it is very hard to attract readers. <
If you put out the sort of crap that you do.
> A lot of blogs get more traffic solely or partly because the bloggers know somebody <
The ones you mention get more traffic because they have interesting, well thought out articles and rational discussions.
> The unfair advantage that these PT bloggers have in attracting readers is ... <
That they have writing and logical ability.
> one of the reasons for my proposed "fairness doctrine" for blogs, a prohibition of arbitrary censorship of blog comments. <
You have not been arbitrarily censored. Your repeating this lie is one of the many reasons that you lack credibility.
> There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that bloggers on the more popular blogs are more equal than others in regard to a right to influence public opinion. <
There is nothing in the First Amendment that applies to bloggers at all. As to other means of getting your point out, there is no guarantee in the First Amendment that a person bleating irrationality will draw the same attention as a person with a well thought out position and the ability to present it clearly and logically. The First Amendment allows you to say what you want. It does not require others to take you seriously or even pay attention to what you are saying. That is your real complaint. You are not getting enough attention. Your real reason for operating this blog.
> And I just want to remind you, ViW, that you are being two-faced by exploiting my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my proposal for a fairness doctrine for blogs <
Another bleat repeated verbatim. You don't have a no-censorship policy and the blogs seem already to be fair. All of the blogs you rail against allow opposing views as long as you don't engage in mindless repetition or threats against the bloggers (both of which you practiced and got you banned).
> (you even want to be allowed to gossip here about my private affairs} <
What do you consider your private affairs? You claim to be an engineer and I pointed out that you lost your license. You deny the reality of your own brother and past friends. I also pointed out the probable basis of your anti-holocaust mania. All I said about these issues were hard facts. You consider hard facts to be "gossip".
> You of all people ought to be one of the biggest supporters of my proposal for a fairness doctrine for blogs. <
Why? Haven't I always been logical? Why should I change and support a stupid proposal to solve a non-problem?
>>>>>> Unless you are already famous, most people are not interested in just reading your personal opinions.
How did these people become famous? Were they born that way? No. They write interesting articles and the word gets around. <<<<<<<
Well, some people are born famous.
There are literally millions of blogs. There are certainly many very good ones that are largely ignored. Even if you are real good, it may take a long time to become really popular, maybe never. Even if you write an excellent little personal blog, people will still often prefer to join the big discussions on the bigger blogs -- particularly the multiblogger blogs -- because those blogs have a much larger range of opinions and also because a comment is likely to be read by more people on those blogs. And there should be freedom of speech for all -- not just those who write "good" speeches. Blogging is a very crowded field and those who got off to an early start have a big advantage. Multiblogger blogs usually have an advantage over personal blogs. The circumstances that cause some blogs to be more popular than others do not confer on the popular blogs' bloggers a right to exploit their blogs' popularity by arbitrarily denying commenters the opportunity to have their comments seen by a large audience. Being told to start your own blog is no remedy for being arbitrarily censored on another blog.
>>>>> But your "research" appears to be only Googling the terms and then commenting on what you find without understanding it or even in possibly the majority of cases, without even reading it. <<<<<
There is a lot of stuff that cannot be found by "Googling." For example, in my recent article "It's the Darwinists who drive away people, businesses," all the items in that article -- events from Lehigh Univ., ISU, KU, and the Kansas government -- I knew about in advance, and I could not have found that stuff by, say, just "Googling" an expression such as, "Darwinists drive away people, businesses." A psychology professor, noting that educated people tend to do better on intelligence tests than uneducated people, astutely observed, "you can't be a genius if you don't know anything." In the same way, you can't write good articles just by "Googling" if you know nothing about the subject that you are writing about. And even after you find the references, you have to choose what to quote. You don't want to quote too much, as that would make your blog article too long, and you don't want to quote too little. Choosing short quotes that give the gist of an article is often very difficult.
Why don't you write an article for Alan Fox's Languedoc Diary blog in response to his offer to post guest articles? You weaseled out by the ridiculous statement, "How long will it be before he too begins arbitrary censorship under the guise that it is 'gossip'?" And where are your articles that you said are posted on Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's blog? You are just a big bag of hot air.
>>>>>> The unfair advantage that these PT bloggers have in attracting readers is ... <
That they have writing and logical ability. <<<<<<
So since they write better articles than I do, it wouldn't hurt them to level the playing field by letting me post and introduce articles on PT.
>>>>>> There is nothing in the First Amendment that applies to bloggers at all. <<<<<<
And there is nothing in the First Amendment that applies to radio and TV broadcasters, but the Supreme Court held that the FCC fairness doctrine is constitutional. The Framers didn't foresee blogs and didn't foresee radio and TV either. Have you ever heard of an idea called "the living Constitution"?
>>>>>> What do you consider your private affairs? <<<<<<
Generally, anything of a personal nature, e.g., my family, my health, my employment status, etc.. Those things have no bearing on the discussions here. We don't talk about your personal affairs here. We don't even know your real name.
>>>>> You claim to be an engineer and I pointed out that you lost your license. <<<<<<
I didn't "lose" it -- I just let it expire because I no longer have any use for it. And my engineering licensure is not relevant to the discussions here, so any talk about it here is actually "gossip."
>>>>>>> You of all people ought to be one of the biggest supporters of my proposal for a fairness doctrine for blogs. <
Why? <<<<<<
Because you are a big -- the biggest -- beneficiary of my no-censorship policy. If I followed my whim like so many other bloggers do, a lot of your stuff here would have been censored.
Voice in the wilderness said...
How long will it be before he too begins arbitrary censorship under the guise that it is "gossip"?
I set up my blog promising a free exchange of ideas, except for obscenity, illegality (incitement to commit crime, etc.) and spam. I later refined the obscenity to "what I would be unhappy letting my mother read". It worked for me, but the real purpose was to test Dave Springer's claim that his ban at PT prevented him from engaging with ID opponents. I wanted to call his bluff, and consider the result reasonably successful.
My promise holds and will not change. Though the fact that interest in the ID "controversy" has waned to such an extent means there is not much (OK any) activity there, now.
Regarding Larry's association, I figure it is harmless (I don't mean this pejoratively, Larry), though I do wonder why Larry solicited my participation so keenly, and why there are no more members.
Under the assumption that VIW, who has a life, is off for the three day weekend, I have stepped in again. No thanks are required, VIW.
> Well, some people are born famous. <
Were Ed Brayton or P.Z Myers born famous? Are they famous now? I wouldn't say so.
> There are literally millions of blogs. There are certainly many very good ones that are largely ignored. <
There are ones on quite obscure subjects that have amazingly large readership.
> Even if you write an excellent little personal blog, people will still often prefer to join the big discussions on the bigger blogs <
I believe that your abysmal readership figures are due to the nature of your articles and posts. The articles aren't bad. You often cite something interesting but then fly off on a tangent making your analysis. Your posts, however, are hopelessly repetitive and illogical -- "’Tis", "’Tis not".
> And there should be freedom of speech for all -- not just those who write "good" speeches. <
I can't believe that you couldn't understand, or didn't read my post. There is freedom of speech for all. There is no guarantee that less rational speech will receive equal attention.
> The circumstances that cause some blogs to be more popular than others do not confer on the popular blogs' bloggers a right to exploit their blogs' popularity by arbitrarily denying commenters the opportunity to have their comments seen by a large audience. <
A friend of mine, Dave Fafarman, a man who has a brother Larry whom you deny being, gave a great example of the logic of your position: A man goes into the park carrying a soapbox and starts promulgating his theory that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. He has gathered a large crowd with his convincing argument. You are standing on another soapbox trying to keep the crowd from straying from the undeniably obvious fact that the earth is flat. Only a few people are gathering around you and most of them are just laughing or making obscene gestures. A few are throwing rotten fruit. You demand going up on the other man's soapbox and being given equal time in front of the crowd. You cite the fairness doctrine.
> There is a lot of stuff that cannot be found by "Googling." For example, in my recent article "It's the Darwinists who drive away people, businesses," <
But that was baseless conjecture.
> all the items in that article -- events from Lehigh Univ., ISU, KU, and the Kansas government -- I knew about in advance <
Did the little green men who publish the Los Angeles Times tell you?
> In the same way, you can't write good articles just by "Googling" if you know nothing about the subject that you are writing about. <
Perhaps that explains why your articles don't draw as much attention as you would like. I think that you need to study what you find a little more carefully before making your comments.
> And even after you find the references, you have to choose what to quote. <
Especially difficult if you don't read the whole references!
> You don't want to quote too much, as that would make your blog article too long <
Yes, in spite of the unlimited bandwidth available for your article.
> Choosing short quotes that give the gist of an article is often very difficult. <
In your case, it usually becomes quote mining.
> Why don't you write an article for Alan Fox's Languedoc Diary blog in response to his offer to post guest articles? <
Because high quality articles can be posted on better blogs.
> You weaseled out by the ridiculous statement, "How long will it be before he too begins arbitrary censorship under the guise that it is 'gossip'?" <
How is that ridiculous?
> And where are your articles that you said are posted on Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's blog? <
They are probably under his own name.
> So since they write better articles than I do, it wouldn't hurt them to level the playing field by letting me post and introduce articles on PT. <
While it would reduce the overall quality of the comments and discussion on PT, that is not why you were banned. Perhaps if you were to apologize and clean up your act, they would allow you back on their blogs. Noone is paroled if they do not admit their crime.
> there is nothing in the First Amendment that applies to radio and TV broadcasters, but the Supreme Court held that the FCC fairness doctrine is constitutional. <
The fairness doctrine applies to people who are using the limited publicly owned bandwidth. Nobody can set up competing bandwidth. Blogs are quite different. You can bring your own soapbox to the park but you have no right to stand on the other guy's soapbox.
> Have you ever heard of an idea called "the living Constitution"? <
That allows us to speculate about what the framers would have done to extend their principles to current circumstances. It does not allow us to twist the principles or bring in new ones and say that they are part of the constitution.
>>>>> You claim to be an engineer and I pointed out that you lost your license. <<<<<<
> I didn't "lose" it -- I just let it expire because I no longer have any use for it. <
Because you can't get an engineering job. The reason that it is relevant is that you seem to be claiming some degree of engineering expertise that clearly is not borne out in your thermodynamic discussions. You fancy yourself as a legal expert so it becomes fair to discuss your failures. As VIW stated, "If someone is claiming to be Annie Oakley, the fact that they were unable to hit the ground with a sack of shit in twelve consecutive tries is certainly admissible."
ViU drivels,
>>>>>>A friend of mine, Dave Fafarman, a man who has a brother Larry whom you deny being,. . .
. . . Because you can't get an engineering job. <<<<<<
This is the final warning. Any more comments containing any discussion of my private affairs -- e.g., my family, my health, my employment status -- will be deleted on sight. We don't discuss your private affairs on this blog. Let's not talk about mine. OK?
>>>>> Were Ed Brayton or P.Z Myers born famous? Are they famous now? I wouldn't say so. <<<<<
Fame is relative. They are well known in certain circles.
>>>>>> There are literally millions of blogs. There are certainly many very good ones that are largely ignored. <
There are ones on quite obscure subjects that have amazingly large readership. <<<<<<
So?
>>>>>> I believe that your abysmal readership figures are due to the nature of your articles and posts. <<<<<
ViW said that people come here just for the laughs. So where are these people? And shouldn't I get credit for being a good comedian?
>>>>>There is freedom of speech for all. There is no guarantee that less rational speech will receive equal attention. <<<<<<
And YOU are the one who decides what is less rational and what is more rational?
>>>>>> There is a lot of stuff that cannot be found by "Googling." For example, in my recent article "It's the Darwinists who drive away people, businesses," <
But that was baseless conjecture. <<<<<<<
It is not baseless at all. It is the Darwinists who are attracting most of the negative attention to these places.
>>>>>> In the same way, you can't write good articles just by "Googling" if you know nothing about the subject that you are writing about.<
Perhaps that explains why your articles don't draw as much attention as you would like. I think that you need to study what you find a little more carefully before making your comments. <<<<<<<
I am performing an important service just by gathering the information into one place. For example, I presented several examples of where critics of Darwinism have been blamed for allegedly hurting the reputations of their universities, states, etc.. Readers may draw their own conclusions. If their conclusions are different from mine, they are free to state their conclusions in the comment sections, which BTW I am not permitted to do on some other blogs.
>>>>> Especially difficult if you don't read the whole references! <<<<<<
I give links to the references, so if readers think I missed an important point, they can point it out. It hasn't happened often, because I pick my quotes carefully.
>>>>>>> And where are your articles that you said are posted on Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's blog? <
They are probably under his own name. <<<<<<
So he is posting under multiple names? That was supposedly the reason why I was kicked off of Panda's Thumb (but actually I was kicked off before I started using multiple names).
>>>>>> Perhaps if you were to apologize and clean up your act, <<<<<
Bullshit! They are the ones who need to clean up their act -- and apologize to me!
>>>>> The fairness doctrine applies to people who are using the limited publicly owned bandwidth. Nobody can set up competing bandwidth. Blogs are quite different. <<<<<<
Still ducking the issue of unlimited comment space on blogs.
>>>>>> Have you ever heard of an idea called "the living Constitution"? <
That allows us to speculate about what the framers would have done to extend their principles to current circumstances. It does not allow us to twist the principles or bring in new ones and say that they are part of the constitution. <<<<<<<
Often there are no principles to twist because there are no principles to apply. The Framers didn't even imagine such First Amendment issues as a scarcity of sites (broadcasting) or an unlimited abundance of comment space (blogs). It is necessary to bring in new principles to deal with new situations. Another example is the commerce clause. There is nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the states from interfering with interstate commerce without the permission of Congress, so the courts invented a new concept called the "dormant" commerce clause, the idea that granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce implicitly denied that power to the states. But the dormant commerce clause is simply a matter of expediency, because chaos would result if states independently interfered with interstate commerce. And is there anything in the Constitution that authorizes federal pre-emption of new-car emissions standards? Nothing.
>>>>>> you seem to be claiming some degree of engineering expertise that clearly is not borne out in your thermodynamic discussions. <<<<<<
My article The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution does not have a single comment from you. You are just a big bag of hot air.
>>>>>> You fancy yourself as a legal expert so it becomes fair to discuss your failures. <<<<<
And I suppose that attorneys comment to judges and juries about the records of opposing attorneys. I can't believe that anyone could be as dumb as you are.
Larry drivels,
> >>>>>A friend of mine, Dave Fafarman, a man who has a brother Larry whom you deny being,. . . . <<<<<<
> This is the final warning. Any more comments containing any discussion of my private affairs -- e.g., my family, my health, my employment status -- will be deleted on sight. <
You have just proven VIW’s claim about arbitrary censorship. VIU was not talking about your family. He was talking about his friend Dave Fafarman who coincidentally has a brother Larry. Since you deny that this Dave is your brother, he therefore was not talking about your family.
As for your health, all that has been mentioned is your mental health, or lack of it, which is demonstrated daily on this blog. You have made similar comments about a large number, if not the majority, of the commenters. Is there supposed to be a different rule for you than for the commenters?
You might have a valid complaint about comments about your employment status unless you were to make a false statement about that status in which you, obviously, would be fair game.
>>>>> Were Ed Brayton or P.Z Myers born famous? Are they famous now? I wouldn't say so. <<<<<
> Fame is relative. They are well known in certain circles. <
So are you. Perhaps not the circles in which you would like to be known.
> ViW said that people come here just for the laughs. So where are these people? <
It looks like a majority of the commenters would fall into that category. I am not yet. I am new here and just trying to figure out if you are for real or a parody.
> And shouldn't I get credit for being a good comedian? <
You do. And if you are a parody, you are a good one. You really appear to be a genuine kook but it looks too pat.
>>>>>There is freedom of speech for all. There is no guarantee that less rational speech will receive equal attention. <<<<<<
> And YOU are the one who decides what is less rational and what is more rational? <
No. He didn’t seem to be claiming that. The individual readers or listeners are those who ultimately, and rightly, decide.
>>>>>>> But that was baseless conjecture. <<<<<<<
> It is not baseless at all. It is the Darwinists who are attracting most of the negative attention to these places. <
The bank robbers are not responsible for the bad publicity. The fault lies with those who point out the crimes.
> I am performing an important service just by gathering the information into one place. <
I’ll give you that.
> For example, I presented several examples of where critics of Darwinism have been blamed for allegedly hurting the reputations of their universities, states, etc. <
The reputations are being hurt by the fundies who want to drag those universities back into the intellectual stone age.
> Readers may draw their own conclusions. If their conclusions are different from mine, they are free to state their conclusions in the comment sections <
That is good, other than the admittedly limited censorship.
> which BTW I am not permitted to do on some other blogs. <
You were before you began ranting and threatening the bloggers. I would suggest that you take VIU’s advice and show some contrition and they would probably allow you back, if just for the laughs.
> It hasn't happened often, because I pick my quotes carefully. <
I believe that VIU already mentioned your quote mining.
> So he is posting under multiple names? <
He didn’t say that. He is likely using his real name on Panda’s Thumb and VIW here. Since you allow anonymous posts, what is the issue?
>>>>> The fairness doctrine applies to people who are using the limited publicly owned bandwidth. Nobody can set up competing bandwidth. Blogs are quite different. <<<<<<
> Still ducking the issue of unlimited comment space on blogs. <
He seems to have addressed this many times on this blog and his replies are still here. This is probably the weakest of your arguments. Pretending that he hasn't addressed this only makes you look like more of a fool.
>>>>>> you seem to be claiming some degree of engineering expertise that clearly is not borne out in your thermodynamic discussions. <<<<<<
My article “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution” does not have a single comment from you.
Whether or not he commented seems quite irrelevant. I have not dug back to read this but I would bet that there were comments from him and you are continuing your pretense that he doesn't say things that he indeed does.
> I can't believe that anyone could be as dumb as you are. <
He appears to be pretty bright. He is no Kevin, but he has beaten you on every point.
I’m new here. As I said, I am still trying to figure out if you are for real. Please let me in on it if this blog is a parody. Also I suppose that I could learn by reading older posts, but who is VIU and why is he answering for VIW? They are obviously different people but there must be some connection.
Hector astutely points out,
> VIU was not talking about your family. He was talking about his friend Dave Fafarman who coincidentally has a brother Larry. <
He has hit the nail squarely on the head. You can't have it both ways. If Dave is not your brother, nobody is talking about your family.
> It looks like a majority of the commenters would fall into that category. I am not yet. <
I am.
> I am new here and just trying to figure out if you are for real or a parody. <
I can tell you that Larry actually believes the crap he puts out here.
Other than that, it is hard to top Hector's observations.
Larry said...
> Still ducking the issue of unlimited comment space on blogs. <
To which Hector replied...
> He seems to have addressed multiple times on this blog and his replies are still here. <
Larry, don't you read your own blog? Stop ducking VIW's responses.
Hector observes...
> He appears to be pretty bright. <
Thank you.
> who is VIU and why is he answering for VIW? <
Like nearly everyone on this blog, I look forward to VIW's saving an otherwise pathetic blog. Kevin's posts are the best but he doesn't seem to have the time to post often so VIW has done the most to make this blog worth reading. In the earlier months I noticed that he often disappeared on weekends so I filled in. VIW has not objected. He seems to appreciate it.
It is very easy. VIW's comments are somewhat predictable and Larry usually bends over and lines himself up so that his butt can be kicked between the goal posts.
Larry grunted...
> And I suppose that attorneys comment to judges and juries about the records of opposing attorneys. <
More irrelevance. What is your point? Are there judges and juries reading this blog?
Heckling hectoring Hector drivels,
>>>>>>You have just proven VIW’s claim about arbitrary censorship. VIU was not talking about your family. He was talking about his friend Dave Fafarman who coincidentally has a brother Larry. Since you deny that this Dave is your brother, he therefore was not talking about your family. <<<<<<
Don't play games with me. Disputed gossip is still gossip. It is obvious who he is talking about. The name Dave or David Fafarman or my "brother," "sibling" or "relative," or whatever, named "Dave" or "David" or not named will not be allowed in comments here, except that Fake Dave may use it as a posting name because that is now his identity here, and his name may be used to identify the source of quotes. We don't talk about your private affairs here -- let's not talk about mine.
>>>>>> As for your health, all that has been mentioned is your mental health <<<<<<<
OK, I will make an exception for mental health, you profoundly retarded mental defective.
>>>>>>My article “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution” does not have a single comment from you.
Whether or not he commented seems quite irrelevant. I have not dug back to read this but I would bet that there were comments from him and you are continuing your pretense that he doesn't say things that he indeed does. <<<<<<<
I even provided a link to make it easy for you to dig back, dunghill, but you were too lazy to use it.
ViU drivels,
>>>>>> And I suppose that attorneys comment to judges and juries about the records of opposing attorneys. <
More irrelevance. What is your point? Are there judges and juries reading this blog? <<<<<<
The other readers are the judges and juries.
I have been wasting too much time here responding to the trolls.
Alan Fox (May 26 @ 10:20:00 AM) said,
>>>>>>Though the fact that interest in the ID "controversy" has waned to such an extent means there is not much (OK any) activity there, now. <<<<<<<
So maybe we can talk now about my favorite non-ID criticisms of evolution theory, like criticism of co-evolution theory? LOL
>>>>>> Regarding Larry's association, I figure it is harmless (I don't mean this pejoratively, Larry), <<<<<<
Well, it sure sounds pejorative to me. I don't want the association to be viewed as harmless by the BVD-clad arbitrarily censoring bloggers out there. Sadly, what is probably the biggest cyber rights organization, Electronic Frontier (Fraud?) Foundation, is only concerned about the rights of bloggers and is not at all concerned about the rights of blog commenters. The EFF wants BVD-clad bloggers to have special rights without any responsibilities.
>>>>> though I do wonder why Larry solicited my participation so keenly <<<<<<
-- so people can't say that I am the only member. Thanks again for joining.
>>>>>> --- and why there are no more members. <<<<<<
Well, maybe we need more publicity. And maybe I should start associate membership for people who support the goals of the association but who are not bloggers.
> Don't play games with me. Disputed gossip is still gossip. <
It is no longer in despute. You have shown this.
Since that is the real name of a real friend, please tell me what other friends names I can't mention on this "non-censoring" blog.
>>>>>>My article “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution” does not have a single comment from you.... <<<<<<<
> I even provided a link to make it easy for you to dig back, dunghill, but you were too lazy to use it. <
Perhaps, you pathetic dimwit, because whether or not I commented or anyone else commented has no bearing on the technical ignorance shown by your posts.
> The other readers are the judges and juries. <
Who have found you guilty of lunacy.
> I have been wasting too much time here responding to the trolls. <
Do you need more time to clean up your cave?
>>>>>> Regarding Larry's association, I figure it is harmless (I don't mean this pejoratively, Larry), <<<<<<
> Well, it sure sounds pejorative to me. I don't want the association to be viewed as harmless <
You lose. It is viewd as harmless by all except you. On the bright side you wanted to be regarded as a good comedian and this "association" has only added to that.
> Electronic Frontier (Fraud?) Foundation, is only concerned about the rights of bloggers and is not at all concerned about the rights of blog commenters. <
Because the blog commenters have no "rights" except for the right to start and maintain their own blogs where they can exercize their freedom of speech to the amusement of their readers.
> so people can't say that I am the only member. <
You and someone you coaxed.
>>>>>> --- and why there are no more members. <<<<<<
Perhaps because most people see the toothlessness of such an organization. Especially one in which, as can clearly be seen here, the founder does not follow the rules he espouses.
> And maybe I should start associate membership for people who support the goals of the association but who are not bloggers. <
Let me be the first associate member (if VIW doesn't beat me to it). Unlike you, I am against arbitrary censorship. I am not against people who threaten the bloggers, as you did, being banned. If you want to exclude me, you will have to have a vote. Otherwise people can truly say that you are the only real member.
> Don't play games with me. <
I was unaware of your psychological problems in this line. I will stop using the word "brother" so that I will not be arbitrarily censored.
>>>>>>My article “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution” does not have a single comment from you.
> Whether or not he commented seems quite irrelevant. <
I have checked back and, while he does not seem to have commented in this particular thread (a point that continues to be irrelevant), he did in earlier threads where you demonstrated your misunderstanding of thermodynamics.
I will now take at face value VIU's claim that you actually believe the crap that you post here. I realize that I may be taken in further and that you, VIU, and VIW may actually be the same person with "Larry Fafarman" being a straw man set up to discredit the fundies. It seems too pat but then again your mental problems appear to be too deep to be faked.
Despite your promises, you continue your childishness. If you are serious about wanting more attention from researchers and scholarly sites, you will have to change your tune.
After seeing your latest post to Alan Fox, a man who tried at least to humor you, I must ask: Is there anyone on this blog you are not at war with?
Voice in the Urbanness driveled,
>>>>>> Since that is the real name of a real friend, please tell me what other friends names I can't mention on this "non-censoring" blog <<<<<<
This is a "real friend" who you claim is my brother, so talking about him is gossip. As I said, we don't gossip about your private affairs here -- don't gossip about mine. And though I generally don't delete stuff here for being off-topic, talk about your friends in general would be off-topic unless it had a direct bearing on the topic under discussion.
>>>>>>My article “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution” does not have a single comment from you....
> I even provided a link to make it easy for you to dig back, dunghill, but you were too lazy to use it. <
Perhaps, you pathetic dimwit, because whether or not I commented or anyone else commented has no bearing on the technical ignorance shown by your posts. <<<<<<<
What a stupid jerk. You blindly condemned that particular post without even checking back to see if there were any negative comments about it, and you yourself have not found any specific fault with it. Your credibility is zilch.
Heckling hectoring Hector said,
>>>>>> I have checked back and, while he does not seem to have commented in this particular thread (a point that continues to be irrelevant), he did in earlier threads where you demonstrated your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. <<<<<<
"Does not seem to have commented"? He did not comment -- period.
And I did not discuss thermodynamics in other posts or threads. You are just making this stuff up. You are so full of crap that it is coming out your ears.
> You blindly condemned that particular post without even checking back to see if there were any negative comments about it <
If someone claims that 2+2=5, it is not necessary to check for negative comments.
> and you yourself have not found any specific fault with it. <
You just said that you will not allow a discussion of thermodynamics on this thread and then you note a lack of comments about thermodynamics! Your credibility remains zilch, as it has always been.
>>>>> You just said that you will not allow a discussion of thermodynamics on this thread and then you note a lack of comments about thermodynamics! <<<<<<
I never said that, you despicable liar.
> I never said that, you despicable liar. <
I saw it. Now it is removed. What a despicable tactic.
Can I continue to use my own real name on your non-censored blog even though you deny I exist?
Alan Fox said...
> I set up my blog promising a free exchange of ideas, except for obscenity, illegality (incitement to commit crime, etc.) and spam. <
I checked your blog and was slightly disturbed to see that the first comment in the thread I checked had been censored. Of course it might have been for cause but it is a bad start. I would suggest that you at least state in general terms why a comment had been dropped.
Overall I can say that you do seem to hold to a much higher standard than the moonbat here.
Bill Carter said...
I checked your blog and was slightly disturbed to see that the first comment in the thread I checked had been censored. Of course it might have been for cause but it is a bad start. I would suggest that you at least state in general terms why a comment had been dropped.
Hi Bill,
From memory I reckon I have deleted no more than three or four comments, all for unacceptable language. In one case (Dave Springer) I reposted the comment with the offending word omitted, to avoid him using deletion as an excuse to run. The other deletions I can remember were John A Davison, whose language was unacceptable, but I advised him he could repost without the offensive words.
If you could point out the actual deletion that concerned you, I will have a look and may remember the context. I am sure I have never deleted a comment for any other reason than unacceptable language.
Alan Fox said,
>>>>>Hi Bill,
From memory I reckon I have deleted no more than three or four comments, all for unacceptable language. <<<<<
Blogger.com is the blog service for both of our blogs, and there are two ways of deleting comments on Blogger.com. If the "delete forever" option is chosen, then the comment disappears without a trace; otherwise, either a "comment deleted by administrator" or "comment deleted by author" message will be left, depending on who deleted the comment (registered Blogger.com users can delete their own comments even on others' Blogger.com blogs).
It is ironic that those who find no fault with the flagrant arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters that goes on at other blogs complain the loudest when we draw the line somewhere. For example, you don't tolerate unacceptable language but I tolerate it so long as it does not disparage anyone's race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. Also, I draw the line at gossip about my private affairs.
BTW, your quick response to comments here suggests that you are notified of them. If you are notified, I wonder how you do it because (1) I have not set up my blog for RSS or Atom site feeds and (2) trackbacks are not supported by Blogger.com. As for myself, I chose the option of receiving emails of the comments posted on this blog -- I think that this option should be offered to all readers, since there is no option of listing the most recent comments posted anywhere on the blog.
Alan Fox said...
> If you could point out the actual deletion that concerned you, I will have a look and may remember the context. <
The only thing that bothered me was that it appeared at the start of the first thread I read.
> I am sure I have never deleted a comment for any other reason than unacceptable language. <
Looking at the rest of the posts on your blog, I find that quite believable. Unlike Larry, you practice what you preach.
Alan Fox said,
>>>>>> I notice you have a link to "the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust". Do you endorse the statement of purpose? <<<<<<
I do agree with at least some of what that statement of purpose says, e.g.,
It is not the purpose of CODOH to prove "the Holocaust never happened," or that European Jews did not suffer a catastrophe during the Hitlerian regime. Those who try to convince you it is want to muddy the waters.
>>>>> The site seems to claim that there were no gas chambers for extermination, and that ther was no mass murder of Jews and other deemed undesirables. <<<<<
The site does claim that there is no evidence of gas chambers, but does not claim that there was no mass murder of Jews and other "undesirables."
I believe that a "systematic" Holocaust was impossible, partly because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews, even if the Nazis could accurately define the word "Jew."
I included the CODOH site in my external link list mainly because I couldn't find anything on that site that I would consider to be anti-Semitic. Inclusion in my external link list is certainly not an endorsement -- this list includes Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, both of which I detest because of their arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters.
Details on my views on the Holocaust may be found by clicking on my sidebar's two "Holocaust revisionism" post labels and "Darwin-to-Hitler" post label. The posts in the lists will be displayed as they appear on the home and archive pages.
Unfortunately, my openness about my views on the holocaust has cost me dearly. Someone on a prominent website said that he and his teammates wanted to cite my blog but did not do so because of fear of being associated with a holocaust revisionist. Could my views on the holocaust be any more controversial than the views of Iowa State Univ. professor Hector Avalos, who compared the Bible to Mein Kampf?
Anyway, Alan, you still haven't answered my question about how you responded so quickly to comments posted here.
> Iowa State Univ. professor Hector Avalos <
Is this the Hector on this blog?
> Anyway, Alan, you still haven't answered my question about how you responded so quickly to comments posted here. <
He was tipped off by the little green men, the ones that edit the Los Angeles Times.
Bill Carter (?) said...
>>>>>Alan Fox said...
> If you could point out the actual deletion that concerned you, I will have a look and may remember the context. <
The only thing that bothered me was that it appeared at the start of the first thread I read. <<<<<<
You haven't said which thread that is.
There are only three ways to determine that a comment has been deleted by the blogger:
(1) There is a message which says, "comment deleted by administrator." This is the default if the blogger does not choose the "delete forever" option, which leaves no trace. This message does not necessarily mean that the comment was censored -- it could represent, for example, deletion of a duplicate or defective comment, or a comment deleted at the request of the author (authors can delete their own comments on any Blogger.com blog if they are registered Blogger.com users -- you don't need to have a blog to be a registered user).
(2) The blogger leaves a message about why a comment was deleted.
(3) Other comments refer to the missing comment.
>>>>>> I am sure I have never deleted a comment for any other reason than unacceptable language. <
Looking at the rest of the posts on your blog, I find that quite believable. Unlike Larry, you practice what you preach. <<<<<<
That remark really makes me mad because I have bent over backwards to keep worthless comments that should have been deleted, e.g., comments which instead of responding to my rebuttal of an argument, just repeat that same argument over again. Comments like that just clutter up this blog and discourage serious folks from reading it. I work very hard on this blog -- e.g., doing an awful lot of research -- and I get very angry at people who try to sabotage my hard work by cluttering up this blog with worthless comments.
Bill Carter (?) said...
>>>>> Iowa State Univ. professor Hector Avalos <
Is this the Hector on this blog? <<<<<<
You don't need to answer that, Hector. I support people's right to post anonymously on this blog.
> comments which instead of responding to my rebuttal of an argument, just repeat that same argument over again. <
This is you speaking? Your normal reply to anything is to just repeat your same arguments over again. It is your own activity htat discourages serious readers.
> I get very angry at people who try to sabotage my hard work by cluttering up this blog with worthless comments. <
Disagreeing with you and giving reasonable explanations of their reasons for doing so is not "cluttering up this blog". Your mindless repetition of failed arguments and your gratuitous insults are cluttering up this blog.
Larry,
I have read through the threads and comments that you suggested. I am honestly saddened. Are you unaware that the Nazis turned the process of exterminating millions of innocent human beings into a profitable industry?
>>>>> Iowa State Univ. professor Hector Avalos <
Is this the Hector on this blog? <<<<<<
> You don't need to answer that, Hector. <
I don't mind answering. I am not. I would like to maintain anonymity but I would not want people to believe that my ideas are nececessarily the ideas of others.
The reason for maintaining anonymity as that, as is likely the case of most of the posters her, I do not want to be associated with the crap that goes on here. I comment often on the serious blogs under my own name.
I got on this blog to see if things were as bad here as they are described on other blogs. Unfortunately, it seems that they are. I also would also not want to be targeted by one of Larry's famous spam campaigns.
Bill Carter (?) drivels,
>>>>>>Your normal reply to anything is to just repeat your same arguments over again. It is your own activity htat discourages serious readers. <<<<<<<
You are so full of living crap, dunghill, that it is coming out your ears. I am talking about the trolls' just plain flat-out ignoring my arguments. Here is an example of a typical exchange:
Larry in opening post: The fairness doctrine should apply to broadcasters because of a scarcity of sites and should also apply to blogs because the unlimited space for comments per site means that there is no compelling reason to deny freedom of speech to commenters. (a brand new argument)
VIW: The fairness doctrine should apply to broadcasters but not to blogs because there is a scarcity of sites for broadcasting but not for blogs.
Larry: Yes, I agree that scarcity of sites is a good reason for applying the fairness doctrine to broadcasters, but I said that the fairness doctrine should also apply to blogs because the unlimited space for comments per site means that there is no compelling reason to deny freedom of speech to commenters.
ViW: The fairness doctrine should apply to broadcasters but not to blogs because there is a scarcity of sites for broadcasting but not for blogs. . (click) . . The fairness doctrine should apply to broadcasters but not to blogs because there is a scarcity of sites for broadcasting but not for blogs. . .(click) . .The fairness doctrine should apply to broadcasters but not to . . . . . . .
Larry: What about my argument about the unlimited space for comments on blogs?
ViW: I've already refuted that argument many times .. (click) . .I've already refuted that argument many times . .(click) . .I've already refuted that argument many times . . (click) . . .
It is that kind of broken-record repetition which clutters up this blog and drives intelligent readers away.
ViW figures that I will eventually just tire of answering him and that he can then claim that he won the debate.
VIW,
Larry has once again proved your point for you.
This discussion is continuing on Alan's blog. I would recommend that people follow it there since, unlike here, your posts will not be subject to arbitrary censorship.
Post a Comment
<< Home