Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
If he did, or even said he did, then (if he takes up posting privileges again), he should IMO, as davehooke suggests, be given a final warning.
It’s thoroughly reprehensible and dishonest.
I asked Sal for assurances when he first joined. Unfortunate that he’s not changed.
Could someone tell me how to put a different pic into my avatar? Crazy-eyed, spaghetti sucking crab is ok, but he isn’t an aardvark.
Hi Aardvaark
I have just enabled the option for everyone to upload avatars but the file size is limited. You need to go to the dashboard and click on your profile to load up an image.
You can setup a global avatar at gravatar.com, assigned to your email address.
Alan Fox,
grazie
Moved.
I’m surprised you’ve turned to accusations of gullibility so quickly. But, as you have, I’d like to point out that the two quotes you provide list a set of attributes that, apart from one trivial (in that set) attribute, exactly matches the claims of the Christian faith. So your evidence that key articles of the Christian faith were not copied from other religions is a list of those key articles that were copied and adding on the end “but, aha, this one came back to life”?
Was Jesus left or right handed?
So somebody added a new attribute and that makes it not copied from other religions in what way, exactly, apart from that new thing itself?
And you accuse others of gullibility!
My flippant reply and its subsequent movement wasn’t a criticism. OM.
oh, I thought it represented a move to guano of my post but which had failed! So thought I’d move it as still editable.
nvm 🙂
No, I am struggling with poacher turned gamekeeper. Herrings jumped into my mind and post and I thought afterwards it had to go to guano.
Question: I see ‘quote in reply’ and reply but obviously I’m clueless on how to get wordpress to embedd my comments instead of posting them separately and sometimes far removed from the comment I wanted to reply too. Anyone willing to clue me in on the process?
The little “Reply” (below the “Edit”) will embed your reply.
The “Quote in Reply” will form a separate (non-embedded) reply, quoting what you had selected with your mouse. And the “Reply” that is adjacent to “Quote in Reply” will do the same but without any quoting.
If you want to quote in the comment you are replying to, click the little grey “reply” button, then you can “quote in reply”.
If you just want to reply down the thread, don’t use the little grey button.
It might be better to lose the little grey button, but it’s useful for a minor comment about a specific point. Dunno. Nesting is set at one deep currently.
I see three things: (Quote in reply), (Reply), and down below those a small black Reply followed by a ↓
That is what I am using to put this comment under yours.
The trick seems to be, (if you want to reply as a nested comment) Click first on the “reply” button in black type in a grey box at the bottom right [ETA sorry for the confusion – bottom left] of the comment you want to reply to. That opens a nested comment box. Then highlight the text you want to quote and click “quote in reply” If you use the “quote in reply” without first clicking “reply” you end up with an un-nested comment box.
Anyway it seems to work like that for me.
OK! see if this works.
thanks!
Oh, interesting. On my screen the “Reply ↓” is not in a gray box at the lower-right of the comment-to-which-I-want-to-reply but is at the lower left of the comment, and only has a gray background if I mouse-over it.
Re Joe Fesenstein-
Yeah, me too.
And note that nesting is only one level (Hooray! Thanks, Lizzie.) So the reply-arrow isn’t in either corner in comments that are already replies to other comments. 😀
I meant left sorry 🙁
Gregory has advanced from bein a boring peant to being a troll whose ony goal is to stir up hate and discontent.
I vote to lower the guano hammer on his trolling posts and the responses.
I vote to move this comment to Guano, but only so as not to be accused of hypocrisy in favoring one “side” 😉
And I also vote to move many more of Gregory’s comments to Guano as they have seemed to be trolling almost since the beginning:
(emphasis mine)
I already got one comment of mine sent to Guano for strenuously objecting to being toyed with by Gregory because he thinks it’s more “fun” to NOT make himself clear. To hell with that!
I did not and still cannot find a way to interpret that behavior of Gregory’s in line with Lizzie’s mderation rules.
If that means I get sent to Guano yet again, so be it. Eventually, I suppose I’ll just give up responding at all. I think people need to be able to call out trolling when we see it – at least sometimes, when it looks quite serious – and if we aren’t allowed a vocabulary for making that call, then I don’t know how to remain within such a forum 😕 .
hotshoe,
Ignore or toy with him are the reasonable options.
I would prefer to have this and all related comments to guano. That would include all posts by everyone that complain about the conduct of other posters.
As best I can tell, nobody here is taking Gregory seriously (with the exception of Gregory himself).
Well, thanks, but since “toy with” is a thing I object to, as when it was done by Gregory, no, it’s not really a reasonable option here. I see “toying with” as a subset of trolling – trying to pull the other “lesser” person’s strings. I do it as often as I can get away with in some other places because I am quite a hate-filled person where it comes to christian dominionists trying to destroy my country’s values. But I don’t claim it’s harmless to them – I intend and hope to hurt them mentally/emotionally. (Which is certainly not the case with my intentions towards Gregory.)
I’m sure you mean something else by “toying” than what I see and do, since I’m sure you mean no harm. But I can’t trust myself to have a light-enough touch for it to be just good fun.
If I can’t stick to ignoring, I guess I’ll have to think of something else. WIthin the rules 🙂
“I am quite a hate-filled person where it comes to christian dominionists trying to destroy my country’s values. But I don’t claim it’s harmless to them – I intend and hope to hurt them mentally/emotionally.”
Wow. Well, then I wish you healing, if you feel it is needed.
I don’t wish mental/emotional hurt on anyone, even people I disagree with on scientific, philosophical or theological/worldview topics.
Dominion is a strong word linked to supreme authority in government. Perhaps the more spiritual meaning of ‘an order of angels’ would soften the tone.
I have just moved a few posts to guano from the What is Science thread. Any complaints please make them here in the sandbox. If you think it is just a case of having your baby thrown out with the bathwater, repost any substantive part of the comment.
Christian liars might try to fool some of the people with nicey-nicey crap like “order of angels”, but can’t fool all the people all the time. The deadly toxins of the Dominionists must be fought wherever we can. We’ve lost some key battles – but there’s hope in that the young people of my country are walking away from christian power groups, and the elders will see their control slip through their fingers.
I’m not hurting, and I don’t need healing. Those who deserve to feel hurt are those who defend the corrupt unholy church, those who advocate christian-sharia with death sentences for homosexuality, those who advocate murdering doctors for the “crime” of allowing a woman to live, those who tell our children that they will burn in agony forever if they don’t kiss Jesus’ ass – yes, those people deserve all the hurt that I could possibly inflict on them via my words on the internet. They deserve to toss and turn sleeplessly in knowledge of what they’ve done wrong, wondering what they can do to make amends. They deserve to feel guilt for the evil they’ve wanted to inflict on their fellow humans, and to cry in their shame.
If you’re not one of them, great; comfort yourself with your nicey-nicey thoughts. It will make you feel better if you pretend that your religious brethren and sistren are just being tested by the lord when a decent human like me stands up to them.
You’re a lousy admin Alan!
😉
I was drafted. I’ll happily leave it to others. It’s Lizzie’s blog after all.
“In over 50 years in the research community…” – Mike Elzinga
So, you’re probably over 70 years old then, Mike, since a ‘research community’ is not usually joined before one turns at least 20 yrs, nowadays closer to 25-28 yrs on average. Is that a wrong deduction?
I highlight this only because you seem to make such a habit of repeatedly bringing up how much wisdom and experience you have as if that means ‘a guy like me’ (iow, a younger, less experienced scholar) must necessarily be ignorant and naïve in comparison. That kind of presumption doesn’t deserve a reply, as it is ageist.
As it is, Mike, I scholar.google searched on your name as used here (including the full name Michael) and came up with very little ‘science’ produced. Likewise, I found a person in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a PhD in physics, but with no CV available (that I could find) on-line. So far, evidence doesn’t suggest you are a scientific expert. Teaching differs from research and publications. Please offer counter-evidence if you have some.
I am a researcher, Mike. You can follow the evidence of this if you choose. Currently I am a postdoctoral fellow. I enjoy working with scientists and other scholars who are passionate about their work, about knowledge, teaching and research. They have taught me much and I am continually humbled and inspired by their enthusiasm and insights into their respective fields. Yesterday I met with a cosmologist, Monday with a chemist, Tuesday with a legal scholar, and the list goes on. I am not some YECist hick from Tennessee, Kansas or Pennsylvania like you are used to waving your finger condescendingly at. I even presented a well-received paper at a Darwin anniversary conference in 2009 and published an article in their proceedings and have a forthcoming paper in a world-class evolutionist journal.
Please do not insult my character or intelligence again at TSZ by associating me with IDists or YECists simply because I am studying the phenomenon of evolutionism as ideology and not simply evolutionary natural scientific theories. Stop. You are not the only researcher on God’s green earth. Have some respect. Nuf’ said.
I’d like Moderators to take note of this simple request to Mike Elzinga for politeness and correct representation (or rather ceasing misrepresentation) of my views. Thanks.
On the question of “What is Science?,” it is not the case that only natural-physical scientists have legitimate and helpful views. Indeed, the fields of science studies and HPS have much to offer.
You can sometimes be your own worst enemy, Gregory, though I don’t doubt your honesty and integrity for one moment. You and Mike are, in some ways very similar in directness, the bluntness can be read uncharitably as impoliteness. That said, I feel your comment is more appropriate for a sandbox discussion so I have moved it here.
hotshoe,
“a decent human like me” – hotshoe
Well, I don’t consider human beings such as yourself who wish hurt on others as ‘decent’. And I’m quite sure that most others at TSZ, though we may disagree on other topics, would certainly agree about that.
“those people deserve all the hurt that I could possibly inflict on them via my words on the internet.”
I hope this anger will pass. I’d like to ask you not to comment on anything I write at TSZ. Yours is not a ‘voice’ I wish to be around.
p.s. I am not a ‘Dominionist’
I suggest you consider the possibility that Mike’s opinion of you is based on what you have written here (at TSZ) rather than on presumptions about your age.
Mike’s posted opinions of people are based entirely on their posting history. I’ve never seen him do something as crass as judge another poster by his CV.
His observations of other people’s inability to follow a scientific discussion are spot on, if a bit blunt.
I’ve been watching the evolution debate since 1956, and I agree entirely with Mike’s assessment of it’s history.
I keep looking for something new in the debate, but so far all the interesting stuff has come from the mainstream side. I keep waiting for a concrete example of how evolutionism has harmed biology.
Neil Rickert,
Right, Neil. So, I provide 12 names and a paper linked to ‘evolutionism’ and that is supposed to support Mike’s insulting claim that: “I still don’t see any evidence whatsoever that he [Gregory] knows anything about any field of science”? Are you seriously that biased?!
Well, then “What is Science?” If ‘science’ to Mike Elzinga is *ONLY* natural-physical sciences, then I agree that I’m not a natural physical scientist, but not that I don’t know “anything about any field of science.” I’ve read some natural-physical science texts, taken courses taught by NPSs and done research on my own in natural sciences and mathematics that at least Mike could cease making such extremist statements like a pompous fool.
Never, nothing, nobody, anything – these are just provocative. Mike doesn’t seem to realise or care how far from the truth they are. It’s all just a scientistic show.
I don’t know if Mike makes any presumptions about my age. But he sure does flaunt his ‘experience’. And like I said, there is little in the public record suggesting he is a ‘scientific expert’ that I should trust as having the slightest clue about ‘evolutionism’ and whether it is a serious problem, as I contend it is, or not. I welcome correction and enlightenment about that here in the Sandbox.
The record shows that Mike Elzinga is currently engaged in de-ni-al of evidence proving what he said is wrong. Just like you, Neil, had nothing to back up your silly claims about ID philosophy, Mike cannot overcome his statement without admitting he was wrong. That’s all we can wait for in the face of the evidence.
petrushka,
“Mike’s posted opinions of people are based entirely on their posting history.”
There’s a lot of projection going on here, especially on the topic of evolutionism.
Have you accepted the evidence yet petrushka that non-IDists and non-YECists write and theorise about ‘evolutionism’? That’s what I’m waiting for Mike Elzinga to admit here at TSZ.
Calling me names and doubting my scientific qualifications is just a distraction from his ultimate admission of this, if he is a man of integrity in the face of evidence.
I’m not ‘judging Mike by his CV.’ But he is publically calling into question whether I do scientific research, simply because I’ve pointed to evidence about which he was unaware. This move, to look for his CV, shows that he is not immune from scrutiny as to his competence as a scientist either.
I really dislike scientists who flaunt their science as if they are more knowledgeable about everything than others. Humility and curiousity are the best policies imo. Mike has violated that with me and the evidence is against him in this case.
“I’ve been watching the evolution debate since 1956, and I agree entirely with Mike’s assessment of it’s history.”
Recently I said that I largely agree with him about it too, though I am obviously not as angry about it as he is. Perhaps this is logical given that I’m not an American and in the USA, you’ve got a kind of ‘culture war’ going on about it.
“I keep looking for something new in the debate”
Stay tuned, petrushka. I’ve got several things in the pipeline. Having rejected IDism, YECism and TEism, and not willing to commit idiotic indecency like Dawkins, there are alternative ways to open new territory in the debate that skeptics and believers can commonly engage with. Perhaps you’ll decide to join in…
I take Mike to be judging you on the basis of the totality of what you have posted at TSZ, not just on the bits that you consider important.
That’s a question completely out of the blue. It comes as the last sentence of your first paragraph — the paragraph that I first quoted, except that I did not include the question in my quote.
As best I can tell, there is nothing discussed in that paragraph that would warrant such a question. You sure give the impression that you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence. Mike is a good observer, so he likely sees that kind of behavior in your postings here, and it is probably part of the basis for how he is assessing you.
It is notoriously hard to define, and people disagree on what they count as science. Welcome to the English language, with all of its uncertainties.
You have just provided evidence that “pompous fool” fits you, but thus far no evidence that it applies to Mike.
He only seems to flaunt experience of watching creationists and of watching people spout off about science out of their own ignorance. Lots of folk at TSZ seem to agree with Mike on this, presumably because of their own similar experience. However, they are not nearly as blunt about it as is Mike.
You can ask, but you won’t get. You of course have freedom to skip over any comment with my name at the top, and of course have freedom to never reply. I’ll suit myself.
If you were really any better than I whom you affect to scorn, you would have merely shunned me quietly, not made a hurtful public pronouncement that I am unworthy to inhabit the same space as you.. But alas, you did not resist your impulse to try to shame me and make me feel hurt; it appears you are not one whit better than I. Pot, meet kettle, Gregory.
As for you not being a Dominionist, I never suggested at any time that you are, and I’m glad to hear you state you aren’t.
Now if you only could see fit to agitate against the Dominionists instead of wasting your time agitating against the ivory-tower evils of “evolutionism”, then you might start to look like a saint. 🙂
hotshoe,
Are you up for a thread on religious issues? It’s easy for me as a European. Religious persecution (don’t get me started on the Catholic Church) is a cultural memory that is quite stark in my early childhood. We lived next door (and I mean cheek by jowl – terraced cottage) to a Catholic family and the day-to-day civilities were impeccable. The social divide was absolute.
But things change.
It is true that my assessments of Gregory are based only on what he has posted here. His profile is more that of an internet troll than of a researcher of any kind. He doesn’t have the requisite knowledge to do research.
Researchers don’t behave the way Gregory does. Science is a cooperative effort. Nobody with that demeanor would ever get any data about anything for very long.
I think Gregory is a troll; and he has now degenerated into stalking and fishing for personal information on people he wants to get even with.
So I am still not buying any of Gregory’s puffery.
Mike Elzinga,
Just a headsup, Mike. young turk
No I haven’t, because I haven’t seen anything except kvetching.
Not a damn particle of substance.
Self aggrandizement on the internet doesn’t do it for me. The vast majority of scientists just aren’t into that sort of thing; it doesn’t work.
If a scientist doesn’t understand the research issues, he can’t do the research.
And Gregory’s caricatures of scientists and his assertions that they know nothing about philosophical issues is pure taunting. He doesn’t study science or scientists. This is trolling that he is engaging in.
I am tempted to say something along the lines of “why can’t we all get along” and as provocative and annoying as Gregory is, I think he is harmless (sorry, Gregory if that’s damning you with faint praise). Ignoring is a very effective strategy.
I don’t mind trolling if there’s some substance. Murray and Blas, for example, are at least wrong. You can see where they are wrong and formulate a response.
I’ve watched Gregory here and at UD. He seems unpopular wherever he goes. It can’t be because of what he says, because try as I might, I can’t recall anything he’s said.
It’s just endless whining.
If evolutionism is a problem, I’d like to know what the problem is. What research projects have been impeded or thwarted by evolutionism? What great discoveries lay undiscovered? What incorrect conclusions have been reached by evolutionists?
I agree. The science is more fun.
I kind of get the impression that William (and perhaps others) have mistaken this blog for a journal. And comments on their posts for peer-review.
Of course you don’t just get to ignore relevant critiques in real peer-review and publish anyway. But they don’t know that, and think that they’ve got some kind of victory.
So, nobody can explain to Williams satisfaction something he wants to have explained (e.g. how Darwinism can do stuff) so he walks away with a win.
Works on a blog. Real world? Not so much.
Try it William? See how far you get!
Perhaps a fledgling, stretching his wings as he learns how to fly.
I have a fairly clear idea of what Kariosfocus is trying to say. Same with gpuccio, JoeG, Blas, William, UprightBiped, and many others.
I may have misunderstood parts of their arguments, but I at least perceive that they have one.
I can’t do that for Gregory. I simply can’t bring anything into focus.