Aurelio Smith’s comments vanish from UD

Petrushka writes:

There’s a rumor that all of aurelio smith’s posts at UD have disappeared. Big win for Winston Ewert.

I looked, and sure enough, Smith’s comments are all gone — even from his guest thread.

UD has sunk to a new low.

112 Replies to “Aurelio Smith’s comments vanish from UD”

  1. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo:
    Acartia,

    If one wants to run a reasonable, honest website, allowing people to just spam it with nonsense is probably not a good strategy.I think when Lizzie makes blind accusations about scholars knowledge in a field, and then runs away from defending that , she is perhaps guilty of simply trolling.

    So, in answer to your question, I don’t believe in the anything goes high school insult hurling philosophies of some websites, such as this one; some moderation is needed.

    Phoodoo, you still didn’t answer the question. Do you think it is OK for a host to completely erase a person’s comments from UD? A very simple question. Aurelio’s comments were obviously acceptable (whatever that means) fir several months. Maybe he made an unacceptable comment right at the very end, but we will never know. But even if it were true, why erase the complete history when you could erase the offending comment? And if he is worried about repeat offences, there is always the banning option, which Barry has never been shy about using.

  2. DiEb DiEb
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: I’ve thought better, and deleted my questions.

    Do I get to ask now why everyone is so hot to dignify Barry Arrington’s faux forum?

    [Edit: Hadn’t seen Winston Ewert’s comments above.]

    I’d rather liked to see your questions! I don’t think that picking and choosing the questions will be a problem; after all, if every mathematician interested in active information – and critical to it – poses three questions, I assume we have to deal with 15, maybe 18 questions…

    As for the mathematicians supporting the idea of active information – there can’t be many out there: Dembski, Marks, a couple of graduate students – but not even Granville Sewell. On Uncommon Descent, no mathematician is left, there are only fanboys who like the phrase “active information”, but don’t know the ideas behind.

    I have no doubt that Dembski and Marks impress many laymen, but professional mathematicians? (Besides “Mr. Infinity” Joe, of course)

  3. DiEb DiEb
    Ignored
    says:

    BTW: one of my questions for Winston is

    “S4S: taking the average of active information (p. 477) is de facto using the geometric instead of the arithmetic mean. The geometric mean favors equidistribution, but do you think that this is the appropriate mean in this situation?”

    In my post celebrating the fifth anniversary of the publication of “The Search for a Search”, I elaborate this question a little bit…

  4. Piotr Gasiorowski Piotr Gasiorowski
    Ignored
    says:

    Mapou (“What Elizabeth Liddle doesn’t understand about the Cambrian explosion”)

    Why do I not see anybody in the Darwinist camp attempt to refute vjtorley’s argument?

    Because they’ve f@*#ing banned us, you fool.

  5. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    This was good from Banny:

    “Barry’s helpful translation from Darwinese: “I got caught. Then I got caught again when I doubled down. I will never admit I was wrong to do what I did, but it is too embarrassing to stay. I will slink back over to my echo chamber where they will cheer me on no matter what I say, even if it contradicts something I just said.”

    Echo Chamber!

  6. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    That man is irony-impaired.

  7. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes:
    This was good from Banny:

    “Barry’s helpful translation from Darwinese: “I got caught. Then I got caught again when I doubled down. I will never admit I was wrong to do what I did, but it is too embarrassing to stay. I will slink back over to my echo chamber where they will cheer me on no matter what I say, even if it contradicts something I just said.”

    Echo Chamber!

    Here is a question. Who does the bolded text apply to more? Elizabeth or Barry?

  8. hotshoe_
    Ignored
    says:

    Piotr Gasiorowski:
    Mapou (“What Elizabeth Liddle doesn’t understand about the Cambrian explosion”)

    Why do I not see anybody in the Darwinist camp attempt to refute vjtorley’s argument?

    Because they’ve f@*#ing banned us, you fool.

    Though they haven’t banned all of us (I’m not actually sure if I was ever banned – I’m probably not, I only made one or two comments there) it does seem foolish for any non-theist to waste a moment of their life composing a response in a UD thread with the constant risk of being edited out at any moment without warning.

    What’s the payoff? A chance to talk sense into yet another Design-deluded fool? Not worth the effort; they can’t or won’t set aside their theological biases long enough to listen to sense. WIth the ever-present threat at UD that reality-based comments will not only be unproductive, but completely deleted? Doubly not worth the effort.

    It’s not my “god given duty” to spend my resources of time and energy “preaching” to the unconvertible at UD. Unlike their metaphor for their own lives, which has it being their god-given duty to destroy secular education and indeed secular society as a whole …

    I’m not saying that Elizabeth Liddle or Reciprocating Bill or whoever are wrong to choose to make the attempt of science-based discussion within UD territory. Free choice. But they must know at some level of awareness that it’s hopeless to expect any rational response from the UD denizens.

    Me, I don’t think you could pay me enough to care if some cuckoo-bird like Mapou says, “I do not see anybody in the Darwinist camp attempt to refute vjtorley’s argument”. To hell with what Mapou sees or doesn’t see. He’s willfully blind and he’s welcome to continue to sit in his darkness all the rest of his days. Not my job to satisfy him, even if I were allowed to.

  9. Piotr Gasiorowski Piotr Gasiorowski
    Ignored
    says:

    hotshoe_: What’s the payoff? A chance to talk sense into yet another Design-deluded fool?

    I know, I know, but the SIWOTI syndrome is so compulsive…

  10. hotshoe_
    Ignored
    says:

    Piotr Gasiorowski: I know, I know, but the SIWOTI syndrome is so compulsive…

    🙂

  11. Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Ignored
    says:

    Richardthughes:
    This was good from Banny:

    “Barry’s helpful translation from Darwinese: “I got caught. Then I got caught again when I doubled down. I will never admit I was wrong to do what I did, but it is too embarrassing to stay. I will slink back over to my echo chamber where they will cheer me on no matter what I say, even if it contradicts something I just said.”

    Echo Chamber!

    I have to confess that man annoys me. There’s nothing much I find more annoying than trying to make a point, and being told what “dodge” you are using. I guess it’s annoying because it, itself, is such a successful dodge! If you can find a pigeonhole for every counterargument to your position, you are home free!

    The question must surely arise though, in the wee hours: if I’ve successfully fended off every possible attack on my position on the grounds that my attackers are deluded/dishonest/equivocating/obfuscating/spewing sewage in the combox – what if I actually am wrong? How would I ever know?

  12. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Barry’s version of ID is attack, attack, attack. There is precious little to defend.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.