Noyau (1)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)

  1. William J. Murray:
    Unless there is a crime potentially involved, or it is a matter of public safety, or one has permission, I don’t see where making private emails public is ever acceptable.

    Unfortunately any email that is not explicitly said to be confidential, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, are OK for publication.

  2. Arcatia said:

    If someone sends me an email and insults me, I have every right to publish it far and wide.

    I didn’t say you didn’t have a right to do it. I said it’s unacceptable behavior.

  3. petrushka: There are kinds of emails that should be considered private.

    Emails containing secrets (personal, corporate, national), emails containing drafts of copyrightable material, and so forth.

    Emails telling you that you have been fired are not among these.

    Yep.

    If you don’t want it to be – potentially – published to the whole world, think three times before putting your message in print.

    This isn’t wikileaks. Sal isn’t doing the whole world a favor by publishing the truth about black acts government and corporations are concealing from the citizens. It’s not as if anyone thinks Sal is a crusader on the side of the angels. But there’s nothing immoral or even ill-mannered about publishing Barry’s little shit fit for anyone who’s interested to see.

  4. Alan Fox,

    Sal has had some stick regarding publishing an email he received from Barry Arrington without Barry’s explicit permission. Glancing at Uncommon Descent (of which Barry’s the owner), I see the Discovery Institute has been refused permission to exhibit “educational material” at a Methodist conference. Following the links I find John West complaining of unfair treatment. In support of his complaint, he publishes email correspondence, including several from United Methodist Church officials. I don’t see any requests to publish or permissions explicitly granted?

    Would those objecting to Sal’s action like to comment on whether John West’s action is justified?

    Nice try, but I’m not giving UD any clicks. I did go to the DI site, though, and looked through their complaint. I still see no justification for releasing private correspondence without prior notification or permission. They’re dealing with a private organization and exposing the names and some contact details of the people working for that organization.

    The fact that at one point West asks for the list of approved exhibitors shows that the DI is willing to go after individuals. I doubt that exposing the names of those opposing them is anything but deliberate.

  5. Frankie: Common descent does not expect a nested hierarchy.Common descent with modification from a universal common ancestor entails a branching pattern of bifurcations (speciation events) and extinctions. We do expect to see a branching hierarchy and that is what we do see via evidence from morphology, fossils and molecular genetics.

    And a nested hierarchy doesn’t say anything about a mechanism- this debate is about the mechanism, ie natural selection, drift and neutral construction vs design.

    What debate? We haven’t established the ground rules yet. You haven’t stated any entailments for ID biology. I challenged you to an exchange of entailments. Me for evolutionary theory and you for… well, the soi-disant theory of Intelligent Design as it pertains to biology.

    What are the testable entailments for the posited mechanisms, Alan?

    I’ve stated my first entailment. for evolution to be true there has to be an unbroken chain of decent with modification from all extant and extinct organisms from the universal common ancestor, because evolutionary theory depends on variation that is heritable.

    Now it’s your turn. What does the biological theory of Intelligent Design entail? Give me an example of a prediction of the theory that we could look for.

    Your ignorance of nested hierarchies betrays you

    Really? Don’t recall discussing nested hierarchies with you other than to point out that the observed branching pattern of descent observed in all extant and extinct life is a powerful confirmation of the theory of evolution.

  6. hotshoe_: If you don’t want it to be – potentially – published to the whole world, think three times before putting your message in print.

    Good advice. I’ve written plenty of emails and blog comments (here, especially) that I’ve felt better for writing, then deleted.

  7. Alan Fox,

    Just because nested hierarchies can be depicted ass a branching pattern doesn’t mean all branching patterns are a nested hierarchy. And the fact is that you have no idea what pattern natural selection, drift and neutral changes would produce. OTOH variations from a common design would produce a branching pattern as evidenced by Linnaean taxonomy.

    And again you failed to post the testable entailments for the posited mechanisms. No surprise there.

    As for the testable entailments for ID I authored a thread that went over that very thing and you choked on it. Again, no surprise there.

  8. Frankie: Just because nested hierarchies can be depicted ass a branching pattern doesn’t mean all branching patterns are a nested hierarchy.

    But I thought you said this is irrelevant to the branching pattern of descent with modification predicted by the theory of evolution? We don’t want to fall into the trap of confusing the map for the territory, do we. Shall we roll things back a little to avid confusion? I don’t know what the theory of ID with regard to biology entails or predicts. I don’t even know of a biological theory of ID. I think I have an idea of what the theory of evolution is in broad terms. I have some idea of what might falsify this theory and what predictions might confirm or falsify it. The theory of evolution will, I’m sure, survive my poor attempts at summarizing it. Your mission, Joe, should you decide to take it, is to try to summarize the biological theory of Intelligent Design. Interested?

  9. William J. Murray:
    Arcatia said:

    I didn’t say you didn’t have a right to do it. I said it’s unacceptable behavior.

    That depends on the content of the email. If Barry’s email was sent to me, I would have found a way to post it as a comment at UD so that his sheeple can see what type of ignorant pig he is. But, given that Barry cannot tolerate any criticism, even when the criticism is factual, I am sure that the comment would not last long and I would lose another sock.

    But, since we are talking about acceptable behaviour, what do you think of someone publishing an OP making false claims about someone, knowing full well that the the person that the subject of the OP has been banned and incapable of responding to the claims?

  10. Patrick,

    The part that is like you is not the banning, the part that is like you is the making up of excuses for your actions here (be it interfering in discussions when you have no right to, or not interfering in discussions when someone is just posting nonsense ad hominen attacks).

    You all seem to brag here a lot about how you allow almost everything as if that is some great virtue. Its not a great virtue when you site consist of 90% sewage insult spewfests.

    You end up getting it wrong most times on both accounts, and your excuses are lame rationalizations. We can see why often by the quality of your posts when you post in threads like noyau where comments aren’t required to be civil. You enjoy not being civil, that is why you are such a bad moderator.

  11. Alan Fox,

    But I thought you said this is irrelevant to the branching pattern of descent with modification predicted by the theory of evolution?

    Please link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can see what it really predicts

    And again you failed to post the testable entailments for the posited mechanisms. No surprise there.

    As for the testable entailments for ID I authored a thread that went over that very thing and you choked on it. Again, no surprise there.

  12. phoodoo,

    There’s a lot of unsubstantiated “we” in your posts, Phoodoo. *I* find Patricks posts to be far more informative than yours, he understand the subject matter and can read a whole paper. Funny how you’re always on this website you find so deficient, yet are unable to add to the perfection that is UD.

  13. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    The part that is like you is not the banning, the part that is like you is the making up of excuses for your actions here (be it interfering in discussions when you have no right to, or not interfering in discussions when someone is just posting nonsense ad hominen attacks).

    You all seem to brag here a lot about how you allow almost everything as if that is some great virtue.Its not a great virtue when you site consist of 90% sewage insult spewfests.

    You end up getting it wrong most times on both accounts, and your excuses are lame rationalizations.We can see why often by the quality of your posts when you post in threads like noyau where comments aren’t required to be civil.You enjoy not being civil, that is why you are such a bad moderator.

    Yup, UD is so much better.

  14. William J. Murray,

    Unless there is a crime potentially involved, or it is a matter of public safety, or one has permission, I don’t see where making private emails public is ever acceptable.

    Presumably that goes for ‘Climategate’ as well?

  15. Allan Miller:
    William J. Murray,

    Presumably that goes for ‘Climategate’ as well?

    I am OK with making those emails public. They show some childishness amongst scientists. Which exists.

    Then why do you have a problem with Sal publishing Barry’s childish email?

    I noticed that you didn’t answer my question.

  16. phoodoo:
    Hey Patrick, Richard thinks you are doing a great job, haha.

    Don’t blame me, he said it!

    Did I? I said his posts were way better than yours. Same old phoodoo, always making shit up.

  17. Acartia: If someone sends me an email and insults me, I have every right to publish it far and wide

    petrushka: There are kinds of emails that should be considered private.

    Emails containing secrets (personal, corporate, national), emails containing drafts of copyrightable material, and so forth.

    Emails telling you that you have been fired are not among these.

    I think petrushka is absolutely right here. And the issue doesn’t have anything to do with emails–or even print. Those are just in the nature of proof. Whether or not something someone tells you (or does to you) ought to be passed along is a function of the sorts of stuff petrushka mentions.

    There are tons of dilemmas about this in Trollope, but I’ll give a pre-email example of something that happened to me once. I was at a “time” for someone (probably a birthday) at a local watering hole and, standing at the bar, was chatting with an administrative judge who worked in the same agency as I did. Someone bumped into my arm as he walked past me and I splashed a bit of beer (not red wine–and just a few drops!) on the dress of the judge. I apologized (though it really was no fault of mine) and she accepted my apology. but indicated that she would have the dress cleaned and send me the bill. I could have protested, but I thought it would be much better to pay the bill and tell everyone who knew both of us the story. I knew she would not have liked me to tell this story–but, well, tough. Naturally, everyone I told thought it was hilarious, that she was a skinflint, etc. Worth much more than the five or six bucks it cost me.

    See how email has nothing essential to do with these issues? What matters are the things petrushka mentioned.

  18. Frankie,

    Yes, there was a crime involved there- the crime of lies and misinformation being spewed to the public by climate alarmists

    So it’s OK to steal emails if you think there might be something juicy in them? Ha ha. Great morals you have there. And a funny definition of ‘crime’ – in what jurisdiction would misinformation be a crime? UD is fucked, then. And so-called “Intelligent Reasoning”.

  19. Allan Miller,

    If scientists in the climate arena were manipulating data to make human affected climate change seem more believable, I would call that a crime-whether or not technically it is.

  20. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    So it’s OK to steal emails if you think there might be something juicy in them? Ha ha. Great morals you have there. And a funny definition of ‘crime’ – in what jurisdiction would misinformation be a crime? UD is fucked, then. And so-called “Intelligent Reasoning”.

    And you are also fucked, as is TSZ and evolutionism. Nice own goal.

    The climate alarmists are trying to fool the public, cause panic and fill their pockets with our money. And that holds for evolutionists too, loser

  21. With climategate if all was OK then there wouldn’t have been a story. Climate alarmists, like Allan, are just upset because their shit for science has been exposed for what it is. They probably realize that evolutionism is next and they are running scared

  22. phoodoo,

    If scientists in the climate arena were manipulating data to make human affected climate change seem more believable, I would call that a crime-whether or not technically it is.

    They weren’t. Eight – count ’em, EIGHT – separate investigations found no wrong-doing. No data manipulation. Every supposedly incriminating phrase has had the marrow sucked out of it.

    Of course, from my previous interactions with you, I know that nothing will sway you. You are prepared to believe there is a global conspiracy involving multiple governments of every political stripe, and the scientific community for no obvious reason, and with some collusion from the actual climate! It beggars belief that people should be so stupid as to believe in such a Konspiracy. A crime against rational thinking. But of course, I’m in on it, so I would say that. Or I’m a sheeple, or some other Konspiracist bollocks.

  23. Frankie,

    With climategate if all was OK then there wouldn’t have been a story. Climate alarmists, like Allan, are just upset because their shit for science has been exposed for what it is.

    Who says I’m an alarmist? Typical knee-jerk moronism from Joe. I actually think there is fuck all we can do. Nonetheless, the climate certainly seems to be warming. Cherry-picked bullshit from denialist sites; even genuine examples of bad science, does not counter that apparent trend, from multiple sources of supporting data.

    And the fact always remains, we are running out of fossil fuels, so what kind of moron wants to burn them quickly?

    They probably realize that evolutionism is next and they are running scared

    Fantasist.

  24. Allan Miller,

    LoL! Yes the climate is warmer now than it was during the little ice age. History shows that we prosper during warmer times. Cherry-picked bullshit from alarmist sites, even genuine examples of bad science, does not counter the fact that CO2 has a minimal effect when talking about mere parts per million.

    And the fact always remains, we are running out of fossil fuels, so what kind of moron wants to burn them quickly?

    What kind of moron would say something like that?

    Fantasist.

    Nope, realist.

  25. Frankie,

    Me: And the fact always remains, we are running out of fossil fuels, so what kind of moron wants to burn them quickly?

    F: What kind of moron would say something like that?

    The kind of moron that can’t make the association beween climate-inspired carbon reduction and the rate of fossil fuel burning (and, for that matter, pollution). They don’t say it explicitly, but by throwing their weight against the ‘Climate Change is Bullshit’ wagon, they appear to be saying that there is NO reason to reduce fossil fuel use.

    If there is a separate reason to reduce fossil fuel use, what the hell does it matter if climate change is a factor or not?

  26. phoodoo,

    The part that is like you is not the banning, the part that is like you is the making up of excuses for your actions here (be it interfering in discussions when you have no right to, or not interfering in discussions when someone is just posting nonsense ad hominen attacks).

    Got any examples you’d like to discuss or are you just spewing more unsubstantiated nonsense in your ongoing attempt to construct a fictional narrative that falsely implies an equivalence with the arbitrary and capricious censorship at UD?

    You all seem to brag here a lot about how you allow almost everything as if that is some great virtue. Its not a great virtue when you site consist of 90% sewage insult spewfests.

    Much of it contributed by your good self.

    You end up getting it wrong most times on both accounts, and your excuses are lame rationalizations. We can see why often by the quality of your posts when you post in threads like noyau where comments aren’t required to be civil. You enjoy not being civil, that is why you are such a bad moderator.

    When someone gives me a good reason to be civil to willfully ignorant, dishonest god botherers who are continuously trying to use government force to impose their ridiculous sectarian beliefs on children in public schools, prevent women from exercising reproductive choice, and deny homosexuals basic civil rights, I’ll do so.

    Instead I predict that you’ll keep seagull posting: flying into threads, defecating all over them, squawking senselessly, and flying off all too briefly. If you want to identify the biggest problems of this site, wrap your arms around Frankie and drag the both of you in front of a mirror.

    Oh, and if you have a complaint about any of my moderation actions, please raise it in Moderation Issues where it will be fairly considered despite you being a disingenous troll.

  27. I see FrankenJoe’s understanding of climatology is on par with his understanding of evolutionary theory – zero.

  28. Allan Miller,

    The kind of moron that can’t make the association beween climate-inspired carbon reduction and the rate of fossil fuel burning (and, for that matter, pollution).

    CO2 is not a pollutant*- and climate-inspired carbon reduction is just a meaningless sound bite.

    If there is a separate reason to reduce fossil fuel use, what the hell does it matter if climate change is a factor or not?

    What separate reason? Killing the economy is not a reason to reduce fossil fuels.

    Trees and other plants are prospering with the increased atmospheric CO2. And without them we would die.

    *if CO2 is a pollutant than so is water vapour (for the same reason)

  29. Patrick,

    If you want to identify the biggest problems of this site

    You are one of the biggest problems with this site. You would get eviscerated in an open forum in which you actually had to support a position.

  30. Frankie: You would get eviscerated in an open forum in which you actually had to support a position.

    How is this not an ‘open forum’? You can even author posts (which we laugh at). Only Mung can’t do that because he tends to post-spam.

  31. Frankie,

    CO2 is not a pollutant*-

    For Christ’s fucking sake. CO2 (and water) are not the only things that go into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. I meant those other things. The pollutants.

    and climate-inspired carbon reduction is just a meaningless sound bite.

    And you’d know all about those, would you not, this being 99% of your output …
    I meant reductions due to concerns about climate change. If that’s meaningless, I’d suggest investing in a dictionary.

    Me: If there is a separate reason to reduce fossil fuel use, what the hell does it matter if climate change is a factor or not?

    F: What separate reason? Killing the economy is not a reason to reduce fossil fuels.

    Who said anything about that? ‘The separate reason’ I referred to was slowing down the rate at which fossil fuels are burnt in order to (a) conserve stocks and (b) reduce pollution.

    Trees and other plants are prospering with the increased atmospheric CO2. And without them we would die.

    Reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 would not cause trees and plants to die. They managed perfectly well on pre-industrial levels.

  32. Richardthughes,

    *Yawn*

    Still can’t see my posts, eh chubs?

    I just don’t understand why anyone would quote the proudly ignorant, demonstrably mentally deficient Joe Gallien on any topic. The man is a buffoon.

  33. Almost as silly as paying attention to those who quote JoeG.

    Or those who quote people who quote people who quote joe.

    Where will it end? Is it turtles all the way down?

  34. Patrick:
    Richardthughes,

    I just don’t understand why anyone would quote the proudly ignorant, demonstrably mentally deficient Joe Gallien on any topic.

    Frequency is just the plural of wavelength…
    -JoeG

    You don’t see why that would be quoted?

    I do.

    Glen Davidson

  35. petrushka,

    Almost as silly as paying attention to those who quote JoeG.

    Or those who quote people who quote people who quote joe.

    Where will it end? Is it turtles all the way down?

    Damn, I turtled myself.

  36. GlenDavidson,

    Okay, I should have stuck a “favorably” in there.

    “The plural of wavelength” . . . . So the plural of a length is cycles per time? He must have learned dimensional analysis from Granville Sewell.

  37. keiths:
    Frankie,

    Do you actually read that idiot Gallien’s blog?

    The similarities between the output of the two would have suggested to me that he does read (or even write it? No, the names are different, so that couldn’t be it) it, once upon a time.

    Now, though, I know that similarity is just part of the Design of our world. Plagiarism, paternity, kinship are all just what should be expected of Design, and are not evidence of any disgusting, heretical, materialist notions of the mechanisms of causation.

    Inferences from similarity should be banned*, unless they simply acknowledge that it’s part of the Grand Design.

    Glen Davidson

    *Btw, I of course know that it’s not bare similarity used to determine phylogeny, but certainly similarity is involved.

  38. Frankie:
    Allan Miller,

    CO2 is not a pollutant*- and climate-inspired carbon reduction is just a meaningless sound bite.

    What separate reason? Killing the economy is not a reason to reduce fossil fuels.

    Trees and other plants are prospering with the increased atmospheric CO2. And without them we would die.

    *if CO2 is a pollutant than so is water vapour (for the same reason)

    Neither is oxygen, but it will kill you in too high a concentration.

  39. Water vapor is perhaps the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Nobody is much concerned about it because it is basically at the same equilibrium it has always been. There would be a LOT of concern if human activities were systematically increasing water vapor contents in the atmosphere day after day, year after year. Not just because of planetary warming, of course. We need rain too.

Comments are closed.