Apologies to Kairosfocus and Petrushka

It seems I have given great offence to the commenter, Kairosfocus, at Uncommon Descent with my comment:

I see Kairosfocus is reading comments here.


I can’t tell for sure but is KF owning up to or denying banning mphillips? In case he finds time to read more…

Come on over, KF and, so long as you don’t link to porn and can be succinct enough not to overload the software, you will be very welcome, I’m sure!


I would like first to point out to Kairosfocus that he is mistakenly attributing the comment to Petrushka, a fellow commenter here and elsewhere. I would like to say sorry to Petrushka too for apparently initiating the misdirected criticism she has received.

I am sorry it wasn’t as obvious to Kairosfocus as it was to others that my invitation to post here contained a light-hearted reference to the only (as far as I am aware) IP ban ever meted out at The Skeptical Zone,  received by Joe Gallien in response to his linking a graphically pornographic image here. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding and if Kairosfocus changes his mind about commenting here, I am sure he will find the moderation rules will be adhered to fairly.

16 thoughts on “Apologies to Kairosfocus and Petrushka

  1. Since KF is using my misrepresentation as an excuse not to debate, I would like to point out that even after denying any ability to influence bannations, he continues to post statements like, “consider this a warning.”

  2. If KF is still looking in:

    I omitted to mention the most important of Lizzie’s moderation rules 

    1 No porn

    2 No spam

    3 Assume all members are posting in good faith!!!

  3. I see KF is still inviting comments from ID sceptics. What about trying Lizzie’s rules, KF? Just no porn, no spam and assume all the other posters are commenting in good faith. I don’t think you could do it but I am happy for you to prove me wrong!

  4. I hope he will answer my point that unintelligent natural chemistry would be a far better general explanation for the OOL by abductive reasoning than non-living intelligent designers. But he can do that wherever he wants.

    I’m dealing with his first point first, and that’s presumably what he wants critics to do.

  5. He wants to have his cake and eat it too by continuing to snipe from the UD echo chamber but still get attention from people who are banned there.

    I suggest giving his questions all the respect they deserve, if and when he chooses to participate here.

  6. I believe we should continue to tear their arguments apart from here.

    In effect, as long as KF doesn’t answer at TSZ, it’s the ID side that suffers on this site, just as the evolution side may look weaker on UD due to their heavy-handed censorship.

    What we should do is ONLY respond from this site so at the very least we can prevent our comments from being hacked up by KF, Barry and Sal.

    If Dembski or KF want to have an even-handed debate they should come here, otherwise we should tear into their weak arguments from this site.


  7. Patrick: He wants to have his cake and eat it too by continuing to snipe from the UD echo chamber but still get attention from people who are banned there.

    I suggest giving his questions all the respect they deserve, if and when he chooses to participate here.

    I think that two sides engaging from different blogs (with some overlap) would work quite well. There can’t be any political bannings.

    Kairosfocus asks whether or not abductive reasoning can be valid in science in his first point. I’ve agreed that it can be, and shown him how it’s done to effect, and what the results would be in relation to the OOL. I know what I’m doing, and why. I’ll explain in detail sometime.

  8. Joe:”KF does not employ double-standards. “

    kairosfocus says we’re not civil, so he won’t comment here.

    You’re not civil, but he does post there.

    Obviously he shouldn’t post at UD while you are there.

    Joe:”As for Elizabeth Liddle it is obvious to any objective observer that she was banned due to her continued lies, misrepresentations, equivocations and insipidity. “

    She was banned because she asked questions ID’ists couldn’t handle.


  9. I agree that Dembski is in the mix, since he is being posted at UD.

    But we do need to get our moderation attended to, so new people can post, and technical glitches can be addressed. It’s one thing to invite them, but we shouldn’t allow technical issues to block them.

  10. It might work, for some definition of the word, but doing so implicitly sanctions kairosfocus’ intellectual cowardice.

    If the UD denizens don’t value free and open discussion enough to engage in a forum where they don’t have the power to ban and censor, I for one will be leaving them to rot in their echo chamber.  They are not worthy opponents.

  11. It appears to me that ID proponentsists are currently much more interested in promoting a literal Adam and Eve than in discussing evolution.

    The interest doesn’t surprise me, but the coming out of the closet surprises me.

  12. Hmm, I just posted on the Upright BiPed thread and it didn’t appear.  Does the owner of that thread have to approve me, too?

    Thanks again.


  13. Sorry, onlooker, it seems so. Only Lizzie (Dr Liddle) has admin privileges, everyone else author privileges. I could set up a thread for you if you like, so you and gpuccio if he decides to participate can both comment, and hopefully Lizzie will be back soon and sort things out properly.

  14. By all means let’s have a gpuccio thread.

    There are things I’d like to know about his position.

    He claims that a non-material designer could insert changes into coding sequences. I’d like to know how that works. How does an entity having no matter or energy interact with matter and energy? Sounds to me like he is saying that A can sometimes equal not A.

    He claims that variation is non stochastic and that adaptive adaptations are the result of algorithmic directed mutations. Is that in addition to intervention by non-material designers? How does that work?

    What is the evidence that non-stochastic variation exists or that it is even necessary, given the Lenski experiment? Could he cite some evidence from the Lenski experiment that suggests directed mutations? Could he explain why gpuccio sees this and Lenski doesn’t?

    It’s been a long time since gpuccio abandoned the discussion at the Mark Frank blog. I’d like to see that continued.

Leave a Reply