Kairosfocus’ complaints about this site

Meta, but possibly necessary:  Kairosfocus, at UD, has a long, and, to my mind, very odd, piece that refers to this blog, called: FOR RECORD: I object — a “tour of shame” concerning well-poisoning strawman tactics joined to denial of abuse of design theory proponents at TSZ

Most of the piece I find frankly incomprehensible, but it includes the accusation that I am “enabling evil” here at TSZ:

And, they particularly need to recognise what going along with or making excuses for activists indulging in evil is: enabling.

This brings us to a live case, one implicating a commenter at TSZ, and unfortunately, the blog owner.

apparently because I did not suppress some comment made by OMagain, in response (as it were, given weirdness of the megaphone communication channel between the here and UD) to a comment by Kairosfocus at UD.  Now I don’t, as I say, understand the link KF seems to make between mainstream science and fascist regimes, and like OM, I find it odd that KF on the one hand rightly, in my view, warns of the dangers of suppressing dissent, and on the other, wants me to suppress points of view that dissent from his (or, at least, dissent from what KF feels is a misrepresentation of his point of view).  But I want to reiterate my own principles here: I will not ban any dissenting view here unless it advocates illegal activities (and possibly not even then – civil disobedience is often ethically justified), nor any member unless they post content that compromises the integrity of people’s computers (including links to porn or malware).  This is precisely because I think that suppressing dissent can lead to great evil, although I would point out that turning down an article for publication is not “suppressing” that view, as KF implies with his reference to Granville Sewell’s rejected manuscript on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (far from it – it’s probably had at least as much currency on the web as it would have done if published in print, and I myself have posted links to it, and invited Granville to discuss it here).. Furthermore, I think discussing dissenting views in as civil a manner as is possible to mortals, can lead to great good.

But KF goes on:

 

But, I cannot stop here, there is something else, which harks back to a longstanding pattern with Dr Liddle that needs to again be pointed out and corrected.

For, shortly thereafter, we see the owner of TSZ continuing with business as usual and the pretence that liberty gives license to exercise bigotry, slander and enabling of abuses, as though nothing serious and wrong had happened just above in the thread from two of her commenters:

[EL:] . . . Well, I chose the name, and the strapline, so I’d better explain what I meant: I meant this site to be a place where people with radically different fundamental assumptions about the world could drill down to find the essence of where they really differ, with as little interference as possible from tribal adherence to their own priors. Difficult to do in practice, but a worthy ambition, I still think.

That is why I am reluctant to ban anyone from the site, and do not do so, unless they make the site unsafe for people’s computers (risk their browing history, expose them to malware). Comments that seem to overstep the boundary between disputation and tribalism and get moved to Guano (not deleted, not removed from public view).

 

So, what is done about a case of uncivil conduct and outing tactics just above?

Nothing.

Other than, apparently pretend it didn’t happen on her watch.

That speaks volumes, loudest volumes, on what is wrong with the blog, The Skeptical Zone.

Again, I simply do not understand what KF is talking about.  I am not aware of any “outing” that has taken place on this blog (I should probably add a rule, which to my knowledge no-one has ever violated anyway, that the real identities of posters here should not be revealed unless of course they are widely known – my own name, for instance, is not a secret).  As for uncivil conduct – well, I have no intention of making a rule about “uncivil conduct”, here, although of course I do ask people to try to address the content, not the perceived motivation, of other posters.  When things get too heated, all that happens is that posts can get moved to (not hidden in) Guano.  And if KF would like to post here, of course the same expectation, in both directions, will apply to him.  And I can’t help point out that if UD disallowed “uncivil” comments about people who don’t even post there, there would rather fewer posts about me at UD than there currently are!  Sheesh.

KF ends, apparently with a comment addressed directly to me:

With all due respect, by right of reply and on the doctrine of fair comment: it is time to do better, Dr Liddle.

Right of reply?  I have no “right of reply” at UD. In contrast, KF has right full of reply here, including, if he wants, full author rights.  To me “that speaks volumes, loudest volumes, on what is wrong with” Uncommon Descent.

0

40 thoughts on “Kairosfocus’ complaints about this site

  1. KF can come here and discuss Sewell’s paper at a technical level. There are several threads dedicated to it and we can open another one if he wishes so. But I have a feeling that he will be a no-show, just like Sewell himself.

    Too bad.

    0
  2. For the record, KF has a blog which reveals his real life identity, and he has linked to that blog many times. He used to sign his real initials to every post at UD. How can he be outed?

    0
  3. I have to say, I find KF’s posts so unreadable – they read footnotes to something I haven’t actually read, and probably are – that I don’t really know what he is accusing me of failing to suppress – not sure whether it is the idea that perhaps religion has been a contributor to atrocities (it has) or whether it is “materialist” science itself that is a danger, and must be suppressed lest it lead to atrocities. Or something else entirely.

    Either way, I’m not going to suppress it, although I will continue to bang on about trying to address content, not impugn character, not because I’m any kind of insult-prude but because I think ideas are much more interesting that accusations. And because I still hold to the conviction that most people really think what they do, and really think that their views are reasonable and evidence-based. There are some charlatans out there, clearly, and people who will Lie for Jesus and perhaps Lie for Climate Change. Certainly people who will Lie Because The Rubes Are Too Stupid To Be Trusted With Nuance.*

    I don’t lie, and I don’t, unless faced with prima facie evidence, accuse other people of lying (even when I think they probably are). And it’s not because I’m particularly noble, it’s because I’m lucky enough not ever to have feared the truth, for which I am grateful to my parents, who taught me, both by precept and example, that it’s perfectly possible to be radically mistaken.

    And if OM has misrepresented Kairosfocus’s views, then I most sincerely invite him here to put the record straight.

    *ETA: and Lie For Solidarity – evidenced by the amazing body of intra-contradictory material on sites like AiG. Or, for that matter, about how the Exit Polls Showed That Kerry Really Won, on DU. (DU – UD: could they be related….?)

    0
  4. KF’s screeds look to me like the output of an rather unbalanced mind. Why waste time on them?

    0
  5. I think KF and BA77 both write as if afraid.

    Fear– rather than dishonesty — seems to permeate ID sites.

    I assume they are afraid to confront their own doubts about religion. There has to be some reason to believe in the absence of evidence, and the most compelling reason seems to be that religion keeps otherwise immoral people in line.

    I have even seen atheists argue that religion is necessary to keep the rabble in line. Privately, I tend to agree that secular politicians promote belief in secular myths at the expense of understanding, because understanding is so difficult and so unpredictable. It is easier just to promote solidarity.

    So the problem in confronting someone like KF is that he is not entirely wrong. He is just entirely lacking in self-awareness and completely unable to imagine how other people see him. He cannot see himself engaging in the very behavior he reviles in others.

    0
  6. shallit:
    KF’s screeds look to me like the output of an rather unbalanced mind.Why waste time on them?

    Right of reply, I guess 🙂 My name was invoked.

    0
  7. petrushka:
    I think KF and BA77 both write as if afraid.

    Fear– rather than dishonesty — seems to permeate ID sites.

    I assume they are afraid to confront their own doubts about religion. There has to be some reason to believe in the absence of evidence, and the most compelling reason seems to be that religion keeps otherwise immoral people in line.

    Well, those are two sources of fear. Some people are definitely afraid that their beliefs may turn out to be unfounded, but I think the more common fear is the second, and that seems to be what KF is afraid of – that if “evolutionary materialism” gets hold of people as an ideology, civilisation and morality will fall apart.

    I agree with you that KF is profoundly wrong about a lot of things, but I don’t think he’s either stupid or unkind. But he does seem to have blocked his mind to the possibility that perhaps the things he keeps saying aren’t as self-evidently true as he assumes. Possibly a result of too much C&Ping of previously articulated views, rather than of re-articulating them, which often (in my experience) reveals the flaws! I often find, in attempting to make some patch of prose clearer, that at best I’m not clear myself, or, at worst, that the thing I’m trying to say isn’t even true.

    0
  8. petrushka,

    Former UD moderator DaveScot, took KF to task for this very issue. Also, as Patrick at AtBC notes:

    “kairosfocus has a strong ethical stance against outing. So strong, in fact, that he roundly chastised vjtorley on UD when vjtorley outed Mathgrrl.

    Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. kairosfocus is just another UD hypocrite. “

    0
  9. Lizzie:
    Well, as far as I know, no-one has outed anyone here.Am I wrong?

    I don’t think so. Although I can’t say that no one here has used KF’s name.

    Just one more thing: I can easily imagine being wrong about ID. I can imagine that life was seeded by space aliens. I can imagine something like Arthur Clarke’s pure energy beings twiddling with nature behind our backs. I can imagine any of a number of gods doing creations and other miracles.

    None of these imaginary scenarios frighten me. In fact I enjoy the thoughts.

    My working definition of skeptical is “not fearful.”

    0
  10. A reply to “Kirosfocus” – Not “for the record”, but “for discussion”.

    One of the many, many things that has offended Kirosfocus recently is a comment that I made. He has expressed his angst about it over at Uncommon Descent. I’d like explain my comments and welcome him here to discuss them, if he wishes.

    Here’s the comment:

    “One reason to make a stand is the though[sic] of a society being run by people like [KF — outing tactic used]. I’m sure it would a return to old testament laws, people being tried as witches, religious police, etc – the American Taliban.”

    And here is his objection:

    “That is an outrage, by unwarranted invidious association with a one sided litany of the usual cases miscast as representative of the Judaeo-Christian view and its overall effects on and contribution to our civilisation. [Notice, how my addressing of the sins of Christendom here on and my discussion of the important contribution of Christianity to the rise of modern liberty and democracy here in context were simply not brought up . . . the caricature was too tempting.] The compounded well poisoning and — let’s use EL’s term: tribalistic — polarisation then culminating in the utterly false projection that Christians are somehow equivalent to the Taliban.”

    I’m going to comment on this. And I get to comment in a venue that is incredibly open, where views can be exchanged freely; a venue that has only ever banned one person, Joe Gallien, for uploading and linking to an image that was titled “nasty vagina”. These are my views, not necessarily shared by our host. But this is a venue committed to free speech and for that I’m thankful. Uncommon descent, with it loyalty tests, mass expulsions and pulpit bullies is a venue that offers no such freedoms, and even against that backdrop they feel the need to ‘close comments” occasionally has no such freedoms. And I find that Talibanesque.

    Let me be brief: Kirosfocus is dragging a hot, distracting, polarising red herring across and away from the track of truth, in the teeth of repeated correctives, led away to distorted caricatures of caricatured strawmen soaked in the oil of ad hominems, duly ignited into a polarizing cloud that poisons the atmosphere, preventing serious discussion of the serious issues we wish to discuss, the like of which we were warned of by Plato in his book of Laws XXII.

    My issue is not with Christians, nor Christendom. There are many, many good Christians. It is with “Design theorists”.

    The major force behind intelligent design is the Discovery Institute. Their “Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture” received $1.5M in funds from Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. to “unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism’s cultural legacy”. Ahmanson is/was a Christian Reconstructionist. (There is word of him softening his stance, but that may be driven by political ambition). His softer stance is he “no longer consider[s] [it] essential” to stone people who are deemed to have committed certain immoral acts”

    http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery.htm
    http://www.discovery.org/p/23

    Now I’m sure the DI will claim they’re all about the science (despite not doing any), but we have that pesky Wedge document. And “cdesign proponentsists” tells you everything you need to know about IDs integrity, ethics and roots.

    So yes, you are the American Taliban.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY&feature=youtu.be&t=4m54s

    0
  11. A possibly clarifying post from KF, who does sound genuinely upset (I have no beef personally with KF, and we had some friendly exchanges when I used to post there.

    I must therefore plead with Dr Liddle et al, to pause, think and do better.

    Dr Liddle, do you REALLY want to be the host of a blog that harbours willful misrepresentations, slanders, tainting by improper invidious associations and the like?

    Even if you actually believe these accusations are true, this does not lift the responsibility. For, the information to correct such distortions is easily accessible and the duty of care to truth and fairness demands that such be accessed and taken into account.

    If this sort of situation continues, what is going on no longer is merely misunderstandings and the fog of sharp disagreement.

    We are dealing here with that which goes to character.

    Please do better.

    Please.

    KF

    So here is my response to KF, if he is reading this (and do feel free to come over and discuss this in comfort, KF):

    No, of course I don’t particularly want to be host to anywhere where people post willful misunderstandings and untruths. But it is a principle of this blog that we make the assumption that people are posting in good faith.. If people are misrepresenting ID, for instance, I assume (whether correctly or otherwise) that their representation is their genuine understanding.

    And it is simply not a rebuttal to say that they could be, or have been “corrected” by reading this text, or that – none of us have an unchallengable monopoly on correctness, not even the Pope! People disagree with you, KF. When I say that I wrote an evolutionary algorithm that produced a string with CSI, you can check the thread. If you disagree, fine, point out why my claim is false. But do not assume I am lying.

    I don’t lie. I do you the courtesy of assuming that you post in good faith. It would be good if you would do me, and the people who post on this blog, the same courtesy, and assume that if they post something that you believe to be untrue, that they did so because they believed it to be true.

    Although I am still mystified by exactly what it is that you think has been posted here that is a willful lie.

    0
  12. I am trying to wrap my brain around this one. KF has yet again elevated one of his comments to post status “FOR RECORD 2” (comments are disabled, naturally). They have figured out that Szostak might be the Laureate whose work we accuse them of dismissing out of hand.
    KF refutes this by reproducing a Corny Hunter quote-mine from a 2009 article in Scientific American by Jack and Alonso Ricardo.
    Now that’s quite the own goal.

    0
  13. DNA_Jock:
    I am trying to wrap my brain around this one. KF has yet again elevated one of his comments to post status “FOR RECORD 2″ (comments are disabled, naturally). They have figured out that Szostak might be the Laureate whose work we accuse them of dismissing out of hand.
    KF refutes this by reproducing a Corny Hunter quote-mine from a 2009 article in Scientific American by Jack and Alonso Ricardo.
    Now that’s quite the own goal.

    Cap it before it’s 404’d.

    0
  14. “One hopes that some genuinely free thought will now follow at TSZ. END

    Comments are closed.”

    Is “genuinely free thought” free from external input?

    0
  15. So the problem in confronting someone like KF is that he is not entirely wrong. He is just entirely lacking in self-awareness and completely unable to imagine how other people see him. He cannot see himself engaging in the very behavior he reviles in others.

    If KF only knew how others perceive him, including folks on his side of the ID and culture wars, I think it would go a long way toward improving his behavior. His allies see his whining, his exaggerated church lady sensitivities, and his hypocrisy, just as we do, and they are embarrassed for him. They cringe, just as we do, at the 987th mention of Lewontin and the Divine Foot and at stale metaphors and clichés being endlessly recycled (“a red herring leading us away to a strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere”). They, too, wear their scroll wheels down to nubs skipping over the endless compulsive “F/N”s and “PPPPS”es. They notice these things. It’s just that they don’t say anything to KF, whether out of undue politeness or out of a feeling that folks on “their side” should be spared from criticism by their comrades.

    If KF understood how he is seen, then instead of searching for new ways to be offended, he might direct his energies toward absorbing, understanding and responding to his opponents’ arguments.

    How about it, IDers? KF won’t listen to us ID critics, but perhaps one of you could take KF aside and let him know how counterproductive his current M.O. his. It’s worth a shot.

    0
  16. I have less faith in Hunter than in Kairosfocus to reproduce a quote without willfully editing out the important stuff.

    Before the section Hunter quotes, Ricardo and Szostak write:

    Recent experiments suggest it would have been possible for genetic molecules similar to DNA or to its close relative RNA to form spontaneously. And because these molecules can curl up in different shapes and act as rudimentary catalysts, they may have become able to copy themselves—to reproduce—without the need for proteins.

    This notion has inspired several experiments, both at our lab and at David Bartel’s lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in which we “evolved” new ribozymes (an RNA molecule that can act as an enzyme). We started with trillions of random RNA sequences. Then we selected the ones that had catalytic properties, and we made copiesof those. At each round of copying some of the new RNA strands underwent mutations that turned them into more efficient catalysts, and once again we singled those out for the next round of copying. By this directed evolution we were able to produce ribozymes that can catalyze the copying of relatively short strands of other RNAs, although they fall far short of being able to copy polymers with their own sequences into progeny RNAs.

    Given the right building blocks, then, the formation of protocells does not seem that difficult: membranes self-assemble, genetic polymers self-assemble, and the two components can be brought together in a variety of ways, for example, if the membranes form around preexisting polymers. These sacs of water and RNA will also grow, absorb new molecules, compete for nutrients, and divide. But to become alive, they would also need to reproduce and evolve.

    This process would not have started on its own, but it could have with a little help. Imagine, for example, a volcanic region on the otherwise cold surface of the early Earth. (At the time, the sun shone at only 70 percent of its current power.)

    my bold

    In other words, Hunter removed the entire part of the piece that actually referred to their empirical findings, and then had the temerity to condemn the speculative second part, without making any link at all with the empirical findings on which their (perfectly testable) speculation (honestly preceded with the invitation to “imagine…”, which of course Hunter omits) is based.

    I’m reluctant to call people dishonest, but it’s hard to see any other explanation for Hunter’s quote mine. He must surely have read the first half in order to get to the second. Or is has he such a strong prior that all scientific research into the origin of life is speculative and unfounded that he only sees the subjunctives, and slides over the empirical indicatives, unseeing?

    And, KF – go read the piece, before you assert:

    We can expect that he would know what is known, and what is not. And, the above makes it clear that what is going on here is a tissue of empirically ungrounded suppositions — may, could, etc — joined to leaps of imagination with little or no empirical warrant, and often with no proper logical connexion.

    Hunter left out both the empirical grounding and the logical connexion to what they presented, quite overtly, as an imaginative leap (which Hunter also cut). It’s always good practice to check primary sources.

    0
  17. That assumes KF has any self awareness.

    Of course Hunter and KF both miss the point that Szostak is doing research to answer the questions he raises. Meanwhile Doug Axe does research to answer questions that no one cares about. Can a squirrel evolve into a bird.

    0
  18. Lizzie,

    Checking the original would have saved KF the embarrassment of ranting about the POLYMERASE in PCR, one would hope 😕 .
    I had just assumed, based on my knowledge of Corny and of Jack, that it was a quotemine. Oh boy.

    0
  19. WRT to “outing”, he “outs” himself on his own blog in early 2003:

    [link removed, EL]

    Should I report him to the FBI, or is he going to do it?

    0
  20. When KF starts to talk about leading people round the death camps to show them what their ideology has done I simply respond by pointing out that in fact it is he that is the intolerant one. That seems like a legitimate response to me.

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

    KF uses the bible for cover for his bigoted views and then responds “but it’s in the bible, it’s not coming from me!” as if that matters in the slightest. Those are your views KF, not the bibles. If you disagree with them then act like it. Don’t act as if it’s something that you are being forced into.

    KF, do you ever wear clothes made from mixed fibers? I’m sure you do. Yet that is also forbidden.

    KF, do you know what Jesus said about homesexuals?

    Here it is, in it’s entirety:

    Miss it?

    I’ll repeat it. Jesus said nothing.

    Now, you are happy to use examples like “but slavery was so OT” yet when Jesus came to make all that irrelevant presumably what he said is then of more importance then what was written before? Yet you cling onto what some ancient verses say nonetheless.

    So if you want to talk about science, ID, whatever KF then I’m more then happy to do so. If you want to tell Alan that he will be walked around the results of his ideology (death camps) then expect some push back on that.

    Judge for yourself. KF seems very preoccupied with people he seems to revile.

    http://tinyurl.com/ct6gvn2

    0
  21. Richardthughes:
    WRT to “outing”, he “outs” himself on his own blog in early 2003:

    [link removed, EL]

    Should I report him to the FBI, or is he going to do it?

    Any google search on kariosfocus will lead to this:

    [link removed, EL]

    0
  22. Thanks goodness that’s a “Theological Seminary” and not a real school.

    0
  23. Can I ask people not to post links that make the connection between KF and his personal details? I know that they can easily be googled, but let others do the googling, please!

    I do have a certain sympathy with KF over this, and I myself try to avoid having my name and my internet handle on the same page – just makes it more likely that the two will come up linked in a google search. There are some weird people around, and I once had the SWAT (or UK equivalent) round after a “suspicious package” addressed to me was intercepted – turned out to be a fat green-ink rant, not anthrax, but I was taken aback. No point in making life easier for the internet kooks.

    Which KF might like to consider, if he is concerned, when using his internet name on a site that also gives his personal details.

    0
  24. Searching for kairosfocus’ meatspace name here turns up three comments, one dated February 10, 2012 and two on March 7, 2012. None are from OMagain.

    Whether or not those constitute “outing” is debatable.

    ETA: Looking for the same on UD results in 24 hits. UD is therefore 8 times more evil than TSZ.

    0
  25. Fair enough, but I don’t think you can cry “objectionable content” when you created the content… (and has never removed or corrected it despite several nudges)

    0
  26. OMagain:
    Here’s what I call “objectionable content”:

    http://kairosfocus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/matt-24-watch-192-homosexualist.html

    Casting the first stone might be construed as a sin. It seems to me, as a low information spectator to religion, that the greatest single organized perpetrator of pedophelia is Christianity. I don’t know of any other organization — open or underground — that has the resources to employ and protect pedophiles on a large scale.

    0
  27. The Buchenwald picture goes beyond the pale. There is no appeasing someone who will graphically equivocate censorship with the shiver inducing clinical death dealing at the Nazi concentration camps. These are not images to employ glibly. For shame. Even IF there were academic censorship of cdesign proponentsists, the leap to the worst horrors of the Nazis is completely unwarranted. One is not sufficient to lead to the other. Censorship by the Nazis does not mean that censors are Nazis! Basic ordinary logic.

    Then linking it all casually to The Skeptic Zone, as if there were any connection between Buchenwald and TSZ! For shame! It would be going too far to accuse this blog of censorship, yet alone to make *that* link.

    Quoting nonsense about “demonic powers” is not borne of a desire to see ethical improvement anywhere, unless that improvement is to be by exorcism. I therefore reject the notion that KF wants anyone to do better. All he wants to do, all he can do, all he has ever done, other than produce a paragraph of mathese that demonstrates nothing relevant to the theory of evolution (or even cosmology), is try to smear evolution and the “evolutionists”.

    He has to employ these tactics, as he cannot provide any ID science, and he cannot defeat the theory of evolution on its scientific merits.

    I suggest that TSZ do not devote any more threads to this postmodern tactic of trying to attack scientific theories through political muckraking, and stick to the science.

    0
  28. I’m not going to comment for a couple of weeks. If my presence here is the sole reason that KF will not participate then I’m more interested to see that discussion then I am to comment on it. Especially as it won’t happen if I’m around. Logic 101. If KF does comment here I will refrain from commenting during that time, while any threads remain active related to or including his good self.

    So I’m all in favor of much of what KF is advocating. Not all, obviously, but the stuff about “seeking the truth” and that. Super stuff.

    So, go for it. It’s not a problem. Any objection I might raise will be raised anyway, and I’ll learn from the exchanges.

    And my offensive behavior will not stand in the way of the truth! Nor be a reason not to particulate, as you are obviously an avid reader KF I’m sure you’d like to do it.

    And if you perceive me to be as offensive as you seem to, I’m not surprised you refuse to participate here. I would just make one final point.

    When you encounter one of my “well-poisonings” then you can simply skip ahead. Change the channel, if you will. TL;DR. There’s no shame in it. I do it all the time! Just ignore me! You know, like you ignore Joe!

    Anyway, I look forwards to seeing you defend your “needle/haystack/cosmos” idea against people who, unlike me, can properly articulate precisely where it’s mathematically claims fail and biological analogies collapse.

    Good luck with that!

    Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    0
  29. Lizzie,

    I also agree that KF is not stupid – He just doesn’t seem to have any structure to his thinking beyond just passing his knowledge through a thick set of theolgical filters.

    He once tried to claim that I was engaging in an Ad Hominem attack agasinst him by arguing that he was wrong – because it implied that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and that was an attack against his person.

    I think the primary problem he has (to get personal for a minute) is that he has real issues with anyone disagreeing with him – he takes it personally and takes offence, confusing criticism of his ideas with criticism of his person – which ironically would be my main criticism of his person.

    0
  30. I was once banned on the grounds that disagreeing with him was a personal attack. And when I attributed the banning to him, I got an entire UD thread devoted to me.

    I think it was the first UD thread in the current series of threads attacking TSZ.

    As long as they get the name and the links right, it’s good business for us.

    My comment might have been personal in the sense that I said he misrepresented the history of science.

    0
  31. petrushka:
    I was once banned on the grounds that disagreeing with him was a personal attack. And when I attributed the banning to him, I got an entire UD thread devoted to me.

    I think it was the first UD thread in the current series of threads attacking TSZ.

    As long as they get the name and the links right, it’s good business for us.

    My comment might have been personal in the sense that I said he misrepresented the history of science.

    I don’t know about readership, but there’s more posting activity here now, so that ship has already sailed. Lament your loyalty tests and mass banininations?

    0
  32. davehooke, I agree. Thank you. I’ll lock this thread now if there are no objections, and if anyone wants to continue, feel free to use the Sandbox.

    0

Leave a Reply

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