…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Another miscommunication. My comment was about keiths’ alleged quote mine of Alan, not about Mung quoting Krauss.
Really, let’s just move on and not bring back that argument.
No, it was a joke that Keith had done that, using the same lame Mung excuse for not caring that it wasn’t an honest quote (whatever Keith did).
Glen Davidson
Neil,
Speaking of “irony detection failures”, yours was a false positive. Alan’s comment makes no sense when interpreted ironically:
keiths doubled down. And tripled down. And continues to try to spread that lie, even when corrected. It’s a sickness, I think.
LoL!. I knew I could rely on keiths to produce the evidence of his dishonest quote-mine for me. I read you like a book keiths.
What’s your excuse for continuing to spread your lies Mung? Force of habit?
Poor Mung. We really got his goat this time.
He just can’t let it go, even when all of the evidence is against him.
Oh, gee. Alan wrote what keiths claimed he wrote. Therefore it could not possibly be a dishonest quote-mine. And Krauss said what I quoted him as saying.
Still playing keiths like a fiddle. But he just loves being a tool.
Mung still self-deluded enough to pretend he isn’t being laughed at by everyone.
Kind of funny, that.
Glen Davidson
In a thread regarding design by Intelligent Design, you dropped in a quote that indicated that Krauss supported the position that evolution is guided by such a designer. If that’s not what was meant, you could easily have indicated such.
And the entire point of a quote mine is that yes, the person said those words but in a different context. The person using those words as a quote mine abused that context.
Why does this need to be explained AGAIN?
Well, yeah … why? 😉
I’m with Neil on this one: even with my irony detection meter turned all the way down to “kairosfocus”, it still detected Alan’s ironic “The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb. At least no one else affects me in this way.”
Mind you, it bent the needle on my statements-that-will-be-misinterpreted meter. I may have to get that sucker re-calibrated…
DNA_Jock,
Is this a UK thing, do you think? I’ve noticed before that a mildly bantering, deadpan tone does not always cross the Atlantic intact. Or maybe my jokes are shit, I dunno!
That’s possible. I grew up in Australia, so maybe that’s why I could see it as irony. I’ll have to agree with DNA_Jock about that “statements-that-will-be-misinterpreted” point.
Allan Miller,
Well, it’s certainly true that deadpan and self-deprecating humo(u)r are rarer in the USA.
But rather than attributing this miscommunication to a trans-atlantic difference, instead I suspect that certain commenters may have completely fried their sardony-detection circuits. Interacting with Mung will do that, y’know.
I use an EA to automatically adjust the gain levels depending on the author.
It’s only partially effective, however.
Because for certain posters the expression “provide evidence” (and indeed almost everything else they write) must really be construed as I wanna WIN! I’m the awesomest! to get the appropriate feel for what is actually going on.
That’s a charitable intepretation. 🙂 Evidence suggests otherwise. I think Keiths can spot irony. Following one attempt by Keiths to highlight a perceived inconsistency in a couple of my comments (over the page bug) I remarked something like “And thank you for the vote of confidence!”. His response suggested he understood!
Apologies, Neil, but the episode with Keiths’ inability to spot irony compares so well with the assigning of motives to mung in this recent storm-in-a-teacup that I’m going to have to mention it in passing.
Keiths accuses me of having an admitted lying problem on the strength of my remark in an exchange of comments with walto. (Actually I was trying to be more nuanced than simply ironic and should have added [/Woody Allen voice] for more clarity. Hey, but what’s life other than a succession of missed opportunities.) I point out I was being ironic. Others point out I was being ironic. I see some other commenters just upthread who seem not to have a problem seeing the irony. Yet Keiths, I predict, will continue to cheerfully maintain that I am an admitted liar. What baffles me is how anyone can think that insisting, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that a fellow commenter is an admitted habitual liar is in any way consistent with the aims of useful and open discourse.
I would say Patrick’s complaint that the rules prevent people being called on repeating false statements is a fair one. I myself suggested (when Sal burst in not so long ago with his renewed enthusiasm for Creationist arguments) that the rules did not address this scenario, where Sal was ignoring rebuttals and repeating Creationist canards with impunity. Seems to me, I could benefit from that rule! 🙂 But I’m not too concerned as it’s clear that Keiths is a minority of one here.
Compare that to mung. I find the scenario of mung listening to the live debate, hearing Krauss’s remark and immediately wanting to poke us in the eye with the soundbite quite plausible. The alternative that mung thought we might believe Krauss had suddenly become an ID proponent by posting his soundbite requires much more of a stretch. Despite Glen’s remarks, I don’t think we can more than guess other peoples’ motivation and intent and we can only know what they tell us. I tell Keiths my “liar” remark was irony. Mung tells us he was being mischievous rather than dishonest. Whilst I might not have a great deal of sympathy for mung, I do have more than a little empathy. 🙂
PS And what the fuck has “eight and a half days” got to do with anything?
I have to say I actually agree with keiths about the statement by Alan not being irony, but I could be wrong about that.
I think most people don’t understand what it means for something to be ironic and misuse the term all the time.
But even if keiths is right that it fails as irony, it doesn’t follow at all that what keiths did was not a dishonest quote-mine. It is. Because I say so. I know what keiths was thinking when he quoted it, and I know what Alan was thinking when he wrote it. Therefore keiths is wrong.
🙂 🙂
Might I suggest that you check it for signs of life before you start beating it again.
Mung,
If one says something but does not intend a literal factual interpretation of the words, that seems to me to fall within the general sense of irony.
Yes, keiths is wrong. But being wrong doesn’t make it a quote mine.
I find it more than plausible. The fact remains that your euphemistic use of the word “soundbite” conceals the fact that what he did was quote mine Krauss. That is dishonest, regardless of whether Mung’s intent was to deceive others about Krauss’ actual views or simply to be obnoxious.
If Mung had said “Just yanking your chains, chill.” that would be one thing. However, he’s still claiming that Krauss actually said what Mung quote mined him as saying (just look upthread a few comments). It shows a complete lack of respect for the truth.
I could be construing the term too narrowly, that is true.
Are you willing to follow the logic where it leads Patrick?
If quote-mining is dishonest, by definition, then calling it a dishonest quote-mine is being unnecessarily redundant. Why then do you advocate for allowing accusations of dishonesty when an accusation of quote-mining will do just as well?
Especially when “do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading” is against the rules?
See also:
Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.
Quote-mine at least addressed the content of the post. Dishonesty is a perceived failing of the poster.
That would be yet another unnecessary redundancy, lol.
Allan,
Nah. Deadpan works just fine in the US.
Alan’s comment was neither deadpan nor ironic.
keiths is a despicable, unrepentant, liar and hypocrite. Which is why his moral objections to anything I do get deposited exactly where they belong.
I should have added more words to take the zing out. Got it. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it? Earth to keiths! Read my mind some more, tell us what you hear. 🙂
keiths,
Which just goes to show …
Yeah, I’m afraid adding smileys, winks and clues often defeats the object.
Alan,
Yes. A comment in which you admitted having a lying problem:
After having just apologized for making a false accusation:
So let’s take another look at your supposedly ironic statement:
Ironic? No, you had just told us that you had a problem, and you had apologized for your poor behavior.
Ironic? No, you had just told us the same thing:
Are you now going to argue that your apology was also ironic? Give us a break, Alan.
Allan and DNA_Jock,
So, no, the problem is not an American’s inability to sense irony. It’s sloppiness on the part of two particular Brits who mistakenly diagnosed irony where it was absent.
Some friendly advice from a Yank: gather your evidence and think things through before posting. It will save you some embarrassment.
keiths is too busy telling other people to think to actually do any thinking of his own. The double entendre must be doubly evil.
Brought to you by the same hypocrite who made this comment:
Oh the irony!
Raising the question: does keiths have difficulty identifying sardonic comments? Let’s go to the tape:
DNA_Jock:
Keiths:
DNA_Jock:
Keiths:
Swoosh! Straight over keiths’s head.
No, keiths has no trouble identifying sardonic comments [more sardony].
He also has a tendency to declare victory:
Yeah, keiths. Whatever you say, keiths.
😉
keiths,
That’s categorical is it? There is no possibility that there was a misinterpretation of the bare words on your part? I find a certain irony in someone insisting that their veracity detection apparatus is incapable of false negatives. How would they know?
Ha ha. Having evaluated matters (as is my wont) according to my own superior opinion, I am amazed to continue to feel no sense of embarrassment whatsoever. Perhaps if you tell me how to interpret things a few dozen times, maybe I might – though you might have to prepare yourself for a disappointment.
Incidentally, it is something of a myth among Brits that Americans don’t understand irony. I argue against the generalisation – there are many fine US dramas and comedies that are stuffed with excellent examples. I don’t really wish to generalise.
It’s a bit like the crap-teeth thing in reverse. But then again, my teeth are terrible.
I thought I addressed them and rebutted my critics quite well.
A good example is you taking the side of Tom Meuller on the thread on embryogenesis. What I told him are almost verbatim answers to exam questions at the NIH which make the grade, I might add. Then Allan Miller and DNA_jock start taking Tom Meuller side and then piling on with false characterizations like conserved epigenetic imprints aren’t inherited — ridiculous x10.
If I think a creationist argument is fringe, I say so.
But much of what I argue at TSZ is basic stuff like on the embryogenesis thread and the Rube Goldberg thread. I back up my claims with science literature, and then you guys whine when I provide a relevant citation that proves my point, that I’m spamming, cutting and pasting and that I don’t understand.
Just to make sure my reading of the literature is accurate I’m going the extra mile and visiting the NIH 2 evenings a week and learning from the researchers themselves and asking questions.
Frankly, what I see is blinders and saving face. I’ve backed TSZ to my own peril several times when I felt you guys were right. But on matters of published accepted research, like that at the NIH, several commenters go after me like I’m spouting some heresy.
Some of the stuff I’ve written on epigenetics here at TSZ is getting repeated as answers to my assignments and I’m working on two term papers some of the sections I’m sharing at TSZ. So what will it tell me about my detractors if NIH researcher who are pioneers in their respective fields (like imprinted genes and histone modifications) award a good grade on my term paper while the TSZ regulars have kept spewing their usual litany that “Sal doesn’t understand”. It tell me my detractors are more about trying to find ways to disagree with me than ever be caught publicly acknowledging a creationist was right about anything even on questions not directly related to creationism.
Alan, you’re free to believe TomMeuller’s bloviations, but some of the stuff he is are outright howlers. I provided citations of literature to prove my points.
Watch me take him apart in that thread. I’m not done with him.
stcordova,
I would invite interested observers to compare this account of what was said with what was actually said which, through the miracle of computer technology, is preserved a mere click away. (one of about a dozen posts saying pretty much the same thing).
tl;dr: genetic imprint methylation marks (differential methylation of paternal and maternal chromosomes in mammals) ARE NOT inherited craoss multiple generations. They are re-established from scratch.
Is it OK with that I corrected the spelling of “across”? That’s a keeper as an example of mincing words so as to disagree on the basic point. That’s about as good as saying the “zygote doesn’t have a skeletal structure, the adult has to re-establish the skeletal structure from scratch since the structure isn’t inherited.”
Yes, if the a female zygote gets a paternal imprint, it has to be reset to the maternal version, but where does the knowledge of the correct imprint come from? It must be inherited.
Folks will have to excuse keiths for a while. He’s off gathering the evidence he should have already had at hand before launching his accusations.
You’re a hoot keiths. I do recall asking you for evidence in the past for your assertion that I had committed some egregious crime against your integrity. All I got in return were invitations to debate on some other issue. Promises of evidence to come. No actual evidence.
Is it beginning to dawn on you yet why your judgements in matters of morality receive so little consideration from me? Do try to understand keiths. It could improve relations immeasurably. If you actually care.
Alan,
I like you, I have no problem with you personally. If I repeated something untrue, it would be because of a mistake, not because I knew it was untrue and still repeated it.
I really don’t remember an instance where I didn’t deal with a major point. For example, especially with faded_glory, I acknowledge I thought he had the advantage of many points, but I still felt there was reason to hold back my ascent. I felt I was being fair.
As far as other criticisms, specific examples would be helpful. It’s true I ignore Mung and Gregory since they don’t seem to deal with the technical stuff.
I occasionally forget somethings other people have told me like about Weasel. I still can’t figure out how much value it has to these discussions. And FWIW, I was the one who at least made the first attempt at TSZ to put drift into Weasel, afterwards Keiths did his own version since mine had defects which I acknowledge.
And I have to say again, I occasionally backed the TSZ regulars against my ID and creationist comrades when I felt they were right. You perceive me as repeating a falsehood, I perceive myself as repeating a truth that the regular here don’t seem to comprehend. One of us is wrong, it doesn’t make either of us disingenuous for repeating ideas we’ve held for over a decade.
Folks will have to excuse Mung for a while. He got caught in some rather blatant and dishonest quote mining and has been lying his ass off ever since to distract from the facts.
DNA_Jock, Allan,
Another bit of advice: Before you mock someone for a supposed mistake, make sure the mistake is theirs, not yours. You’ll save yourself some additional embarrassment that way.
DNA_Jock at least had the sense to try to change the subject away from Alan’s statement. Oddly, the conversation he chose to highlight (but did not link to) went no better for him than this one has, and arguably worse. So go figure.
In any case, I invite you both to explain this to us:
1. Alan apologized for a false accusation and told us the problem is due to his emotional reactions, that’s there’s no excuse for it, and that he’ll try to do better.
2. Then he told us that he has a lying problem, that it’s his problem, and that it’s an emotional response that he’s “learning to curb”.
Yet you are actually and bizarrely arguing that the second statement was ironic. How on earth is the second statement ironic when it simply echoes the first statement, which is obviously not ironic?
Good luck explaining how your superior irony-detection abilities led you to that obviously bogus conclusion.
Allan and DNA_Jock,
Here are the two statements again, for your convenience:
First:
Second:
It’s bizarre to suggest that the second statement is ironic, when in fact it simply echoes the first, obviously unironic statement.
You guys made a mistake. It’s doubly embarrassing because you were mocking someone else, when in fact the mistake was yours. Them’s the breaks.
Reality is reality. Deal with it and move on.
Yes, folks! Admit your mistakes or Keiths will taunt you a second time! 🙂