…How to have a conversation, (comments open).
I see out good friend whose real name shall not be used despite he himself perpetually linking to it on his website, KirosFocus, has written another copypasta filled FYI / FTR:
Look, KF, You’re clearly reading TSZ and would like to participate. You can have Admin privileges and start threads. The only thing you can’t do it edit, moderate them or delete them for reasons other than listed in the site. (It is better if moderators don’t moderate their own threads, IMHO).
It is my opinion that your FYI / FTR posts are a bad idea. Here’s why:
- By not allowing criticism to be directly attached to them you are not proceeding in the most intellectually honest way.
- You keep relinking to them so criticisms have to be redrafted after every ‘reboot’
- You post on a blog that censors, edits and even DISSAPEARS whole commenters.
- No rationale or many times even acknowledgement is given by the moderators.
- The above are hallmarks of dogma, not honest inquiry.
If your ideas are good, they’ll hold up under scrutiny. Exposing them to pointed criticism may help you refine them. A quick check shows non constitutional crises in a certain island that shall not be named, so it’s a great time to take the plunge, with a hearty “BYDAND!”
[title truncated by Lizzie]
I thought he was just making it clear that there was no reason to read his posts.
That, and the repetition of “Lewontin” (always getting it wrong) and ‘Dawkins said that life has the appearance of design.’ Just refer to something over here, then copy/paste (or its equivalent) the same old rubbish.
Has anyone been known to read his posts through in, say, the last five years?
Glen Davidson
Stay positive guys. Let’s not give perceived reasons not to participate,
As KF is a member here, and is invited to take part in this discussion, I will regard him as a participant and move rule-violating posts to guano.
Ouch. My first guanoing. But I agree.
As a matter of fact, there is no TSZ account for Kairosfocus. Could be wrong, but I don’t think he has ever participated here.
Rich in the OP:
I think you mean to say Author privileges, Rich.
PS
Would you rather folks left off commenting altogether unless and until KF decides to participate here?
Alan Fox,
That may be correct. I’m not sure of the hierarchy, or what status *I* have. I have un-spam-bucketed comments, so I’m one of those.
I’d ask people to use restraint. There really is nothing to be scared of – Mung does fine and reports back to UD with tales of our intellectual shortcomings. I’m sure KF could do the same?
Richardthughes,
1) Subscriber (default on registration)
2) Contributor (All human members have at least this status)
3) Author (available to any member on request who wishes to post an OP and doesn’t already have author status)
4) Editor (long-time members who have regularly contributed OPs)
5) Admin (Lizzie and helpers)
Ah. He was once, but it probably got deleted at the crash. I think I signed him up myself.
Yeah, that’s your Darwinist | Materialist version!
I guano the post, not the poster 🙂
That’s going to be tough! 🙂
In answer to Glen’s question:
I don’t usually bother. I use the number of comments as a guide whether a thread might be worth reading and check the latest comments list for commenters who I think are usually interesting. So having “comments closed” is counter-productive, assuming KF is including me in his target audience. I really wonder who he thinks his audience is.
Anyway, I had a look at the most recent OP and, amongst the many diagrams, I see I have been quoted! (Lizzie gets star billing and a couple of other TSZ members get quoted too.)
Then, as a response, KF writes:
In case KF is looking in, may I offer a suggestion. When you write stuff like this, it invites parody. You should definitely try to avoid the word “correction” if you want to be taken seriously.
And I’ll point out that the reason I have not changed my views despite KF’s repeated correction, is that I still don’t think he is correct!
You should probably first make sue you’re right before you correct some one?
No worries. I think that you were correct to guano my comment.
I would love to see KF participate on a level playing field, which doesn’t exist at UD. But I don’t have enough Peter Pan in me (or Perier Pan, as auto correct tried to invoke) to think that it will ever happen. Which is too bad. Because, in spite of my opinions of his views, he is obviously very intelligent.
C’mon guys, look on the bright side. Just think how much we’ve learned about fishing reels. 🙂
Not just any fishing reel. But the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel. The Cadillac of fishing reels. Feared by fish and worms alike.
I doubt kairosfocus (henceforth KF) is going to post here, so if I were you all I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
Let me make a just a few points.
Most of you at one time or another have had ample opportunity to respond to OP’s at UD by KF. Ask yourselves what you did with that opportunity.
I believe KF still has an open offer to host a 6,000 word essay (or some such) and that has been open for some time. Has anyone taken up the challenge?
The most recent thread that KF created and opened for comment was quickly derailed by posters screaming for the return of AS. Maybe no one from here was involved, but who has given him (KF) reason to expect any real discussion? Ever?
Things will be all better if he comes here? Oh please.
I did reply. Then he deleted my account. Three times. Then he created an FYI / FTR with comments closed.
My take it was people highlighting it is unlikely posters will invest in substantive response in a venue where their work can be disappeared entirely. And they’d be right. Remember when Sal changed your posts at UD and / or disemvowelled them (which was, FTR, a shitty thing to do BTW)? How did that make you feel?
Yes.
Indeed. You are welcome to do so. 🙂
Windows of opportunity have opened and closed. Views critical of KF break upon the rocks of KF’s correction. Rocks can be impervious to water. KF appears impervious to the possibility that he may be mistaken.
I started writing a piece and gave up when I realised I was re-inventing the wheel. Many writers, starting with Charles Darwin, have done better. Also, I’ve become somewhat cynical of moderation at UD. There’s no guarantee that words will be respected. There are many examples of unexplained deletions and editing of other people’s comments. KF has been a regular user of “the speaker in the ceiling” – a thoroughly disreputable practice.
There is discussion here regarding that particular incident. To save derailing this thread why don’t you respond there to points raised?
Pure speculation on your part. If he doesn’t try dialogue, how can you know? I do recall an ID critic on the old ARN forum, the pixie, being invited to KF’s blog to argue evolution vs ID. The pixie, as a commenter, was a straight-up guy with no axe to grind and just straightforwardly argued the case. Mid-discussion, KF announced that pixie had to make a final summary of X words and closed the discussion. I’d link to it but as the ARN forum has evaporated into thin air, I can’t reference it for the link.
ETA Found it
I’d be delighted if UD participants like Kairosfocus, StephenB, and Timaeus were to contribute here. I’d like to see how their commitment to “self-evident truth” holds up in a debating forum where the administration is purely procedural and neutral on substantive issues.
But I know that none of them will come over here. Kairosfocus has declared many times that he regards TSZ as nothing more than a legitimizing front for After the Bar Closes (because some of the same people contribute to both sites) and After the Bar Closes is clearly beyond the pale, because some of the people there openly mock Kairosfocus under his real name.
Never mind that such behavior would be swiftly Guanoed here — the sheer fact that any of us also contribute to a site where other people do that kind of thing is enough to make Kairosfocus refrain from coming here. Basically, this is like saying you’ll never go to a specific bar, even when invited, because some of the people who go to that bar also sometimes go to another bar at which there are other people who make fun of you.
Yes indeed. Before he got so upset with me, I had some good exchanges with KF.
Although not entirely, because some of the people who go to that bar also go to UD, and he posts there.
No, because the question is self-begging.
I “derailed it” by explaining why I was not going to address his post there. Do you write tabloid headlines in RL Mung?
I put my case.
What a coincidence KF just posted this:
Come in KF, the water is lovely.
What I don’t understand is why it is taking KF seven (and counting) rambling OPs to respond to a single statement made by Elizabeth.
With regard to Mung’s claim that KFs last open comment OP was quickly derailed, it should be mentioned that it was actually KF who derailed it. Elizabeth simply stated why she would not engage in discussions at UD and invited KF to join the discussion at TSZ. He then belaboured the point, going as far as accusing Elizabeth of specifically commenting on his thread as a further example of cyber stalking. This in spite of the fact that Elizabeth’s name was in the title of the OP.
I reiterate my wish that KF would participate here, under TSZ’s rules.
I did a quick read through the link. I was surprised to note that the comments are still open. Although I suspect that any comment may go into moderation limbo.
Just trying to build my resume for when I apply for the role of “News” at UD.
Thanks for giving me a platform. 😀
For shits and giggles I posted a comment on the KF OP I mentioned above as Yarko Matkewski (one of my UD banned puppets). And he responded to it in his most recent FYI/FTR. I don’t know whether to be proud, or what. I haven’t read it yet, but I now feel obligated.
Since KF does not want to discuss his claims, I suggest we do so here. Starting with his most recent FYI/FTR (#8). I only suggest this one because it was in response to a comment that I made.
Response to 1: I prefer to think of it as sharing the burden. Surely both the claim that OOL occurred through natural processes, and the claim that it was due to intelligent intervention, both have an equal burden of proof.
Response to 2: ignoring the fact that KF’s favourite acronym presupposes the designer, he is absolutely wrong. A snowflake meets this criteria and it is not designed. Where is the intelligent intervention every time a baby is born. Surely a baby meets his criteria, and it wasn’t the result of an intelligent cause.
Response to 3: Yes, nobody has said that you can’t.
UD is mostly an advocacy/activist cultural crusading blog, not really a discussion and critical analysis blog of the ID hypothesis.
The FYI/FTR are really promotions and marketing by KF, not really intended to invite discussion and dialogue. They don’t welcome reasoned and informed and specialized analysis by people with training in relevant fields.
I felt he was especially condescending to me regarding Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics. I’m an IDist, and KF pulled some of that FYI/FTR junk on me because some of what he said was scientifically incorrect and he didn’t like being called on it. Toward the end he made freshman logic errors with his backward inferences about the law of large numbers.
I don’t endorse his writings to train the next generation of IDists, the FYI/FTR are incomprehensible and confusing and unsuitable for consumption at any level of scientific training. In contrast, I’ve recommended Cornelius Hunter’s blog to students of ID.
I treated UD as a place to explore issues rather than a place to advocate cultural change. When someone was of high level of scholarly expertise (like Gordon Davisson), I welcomed the dialogue. I was not exactly appreciated for this by my colleagues at UD.
Advocacy blogs often resort to demonizing and marginalizing everyone who doesn’t agree. Their moral fiber and intelligence spoken of in the most derogatory ways whether deserved or not.
Personally, I’m fine with a moderation policy of invited participants, not an open microphone. Trash talking is sometimes ok by me, as long as there is some technical depth which Joe G’s posts had zero amount of. 🙂
I participate at TSZ because some of the people here have technical depth starting with basic math skills which few of my detractors confess they don’t have.
Well, that’s at least true of the threads that Salvador controlled, where he regularly deleted the posts of one of his biggest critics at UD.
Say it isn’t so, Salvador.
Over at UD, Mung kicks off another pity-party:
Now no one should ever get threats, ever. But does ID want Megan Fox as their Heroine?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/03/23/creationist-megan-fox-thinks-our-library-fundraiser-backfired/
I can’t use sufficiently rude words to describe her here. Bravo, News and Mung.
Here’s bonus content:
Odious.
But all of this of course, a distraction. The internet enables this behavior, but does KF clutch his pearls and avoid the internet? Of course not. He just wants an excuse, any excuse not to have open dialogue. Mung seems quite supportive, although credit to Mung he has shown up here for a chat and our black helicopter chemtrails haven’t homoized him yet (get on that KeithS).
There is no good reason not to post here if you really want dialogue not propaganda. Hence this thread.
Robert Byers is actually the voice of reason in that thread:
Rich:
You’ve gotten our roles confused. You’re the hugging honey-trap homoizer. I’m the Alinskyite chemtrail atmosphere clouder/polariser/confuser.
keiths,
Oh, my bad, I get oil of ad hominem and oil for add homo confused sometimes. *Hugs*
Ah yes, the old “we’re atheists, we’d never do that! It’s against our religion.”
Remind me again about the purpose of this thread? Was it to encourage kairosfocus to come here and post?
Mung, please don’t make things up. I never said that, nor did I doubt she’d been threatened, in fact I made sure the first thing I did was to condem it. But her situation has nothing to do with why KF won’t post here. Invite him at UD – hopefully he’ll come. If not we can examine his reasons.
Thanks in advance.
And Mung at UD
“6
MungJune 7, 2015 at 12:21 am
Meanwhile, the idea is already being poo poo’d over at TSZ, and this I think demonstrates quite nicely why kf sees TSZ as an enabler of such activity, and rightly calls Elizabeth Liddle to account.
And then they express “wonder” at why kf doesn’t post there.
lol”
No I don’t “wonder”, I just highlight there is no legitimate reason if you seek honest dialogue. Reciprocating Bill’s thoughts on you seem very accurate.
Richardthughes,
(I see Rich beat me to it)
Mung writes at UD:
Rightly? Rightly?! Just what do you and KF think you can “rightly” reproach Lizzie for? Just what do you claim she is enabling?
Au contraire. I think there would be astonishment among TSZ contributors if KF did post here. Were he to do so though, I guarantee the moderation would be fair and even-handed.
stcordova,
What would that “ID hypothesis” be when it’s at home, then? (UK phrasing because Lizzie should feel at home at her own site.)
Are there any sites you recommend where this supposed hypothesis is discussed seriously?
I recommend TSZ.
I revised my view of the Explanatory Filter thanks to your work as MathGrrl, and recommend dropping CSI from the EF. I also additionally added at TSZ my critical views of using 2nd to defend ID. How was that not a serious discussion?
What would count as a serious discussion? I said ID should not be promoted as science, I said the Designer is appears absent from every day life and physical experiments.
If you don’t think a hypothesis with those constraints can ever be serious, then no website will satisfy you. The ID hypothesis isn’t for you. That’s fine, I respect that.
On the other hand, one necessary but not sufficient component of the Design hypothesis for biology are the problems with OOL and mainstream evolutionary theory.
What’s the Design hypothesis for biology? Biological systems look like they were designed by a human-like intelligence.
Neil doesn’t even think they look designed, Dawkins says they look designed. I agree with Dawkins that they look designed.
Now if you think IDists critique of mainstream theories is flawed, I sharply disagree. They’ve identified incoherencies and errors that show many mainstream theories are demonstrably false. If you think these discussions aren’t serious, then perhaps no website is for you.
Personally, I happen to like Programming of Life website by Don Johnson who has a PhD in chemistry and computer science and worked with recombinant DNA.
Among creationists, even though we accept God as the Designer, there is active debate whether certain features are properly interpreted as designed or just our imagination. For example, I told one creationist the patterns of diversity and similarity between DNA in species are non-random and not the result of some evolutionary progression and that they are designed in a way to elucidate protein structure when we look at interspecies comparisons of genes. He was skeptical.
That was the ID hypothesis for the patterns of similarity and diversity in species. I claim the hierarchical patterns are non random and are not consistent with a phylogenetic interpretation but act as a steganographic code. That is a testable hypothesis to some degree in as much as if I demonstrate a correlation say between the alpha helix and beta sheet regions, active sites, etc. and the patterns of similarity and diversity, I’ve at least established a correlation that doesn’t fit so well with the evolutionary paradigm. Whether any one thinks such patterns necessitate God is a separate discussion, but I’m beginning to search for those patterns.
Remember – ID itself isn’t science *yet* due to unsatisfactory tools and methodological problems.
KF at UD (part 10)
KF, you appear to be using the word “reply” in a non-standard sense. What has any of what you write to do with what Rich wrote? There also seems to be some sort of allegation in there that this site or some of its participants are cyber-stalking you and that someone is even planning a trip to Montserrat. I suggest you have absolutely zero evidence for such an allegation and I request that you either put up such evidence or stop making these bizarre claims.
Thanks in advance.