Working out a gentleman’s agreement between TSZ and my publishing activities

As much as the TSZ regulars may have sharp disagreement with many of my views, I actually have a vested interest in seeing TSZ survive and prosper and attract participation with talent and brains. TSZ is valuable because of the quality of the participants, namely, professors (like Joe Felsenstein, Jeff Shallit), textbook authors (like Larry Moran), specialists (Tom English, John Harshman, Mark Frank, Mike Elzinga, etc.), academics, practicing scientists, etc. I suspect JohnnyB and VJTorley might have comparable reasons for their participation at TSZ.

The purpose of me posting here is to see what sort of INFORMAL gentleman’s agreement can be worked out to the mutual benefit of TSZ and my publishing efforts.

I’ve slowly and steadily grown a small publishing and reporting business in private creationist venues, but now am expanding to more public venues. The private venues were private primarily because the content was very obscure (like say the 4D nucleome project at the NIH) and of interest to a handful of creationists willing to pay for my reporting to them directly. A quasi private report that will soon become public is my nylonase paper (assuming it gets through all the approval channels for public release).

The main part of the nylonase paper is 15 pages, the supplemental parts are over 60 pages. This has value to the ID and creationist communities because the nylonase topic has been used as an objection to the published work of several ID authors. So, one can see the cultural and potential monetary value of the nylonase project. Part of the financing of the project entailed covering the week of expenses connected to the Lipscomb conference where I got the chance to confer with biochemists and specialists about nylonases among other topics like chromatin and speciation. See:

My presentation at Lipscomb University in front of faculty and deans of several universities available for free online (expense for live attendance is $390)

My participation at TSZ has cleaned up a lot of errors on material that I pass on to the readers of my publications. I get all this free-of-charge editorial review, and that translates into the value of the product I’m marketing to my paid readers. So, that’s the picture from my end.

I want TSZ to thrive and prosper as a community because I believe it is a good thing that these topics can be debated and explored. In contrast to the way Barry Arrington ran UD, I think there is a place for exploration blogs vs. advocacy blogs. UD was an advocacy blog, and TSZ is more an exploration blog. Whereas Barry was eager to demonize and devalue his opponents, I valued my opponents for their ability to correct my misunderstandings and give me lots of free-of-charge tutoring on subjects I was unfamiliar with. Barry really resented my way of doing business….

So my question is:

What is there of value that I can give to TSZ in exchange for the value it has given me? And if not something of value, how can I at least minimize any negative impact I have of TSZ.

Specifically, what is an orderly way of me alerting TSZ of some of the things I’m publishing without simultaneously flooding TSZ with stuff the readers don’t want to read? How can this be done in a way that adds value to TSZ and aligns with TSZ’s vision?

Now granted, many of you would seem quite happy to see creationists go away forever and thus usher in a Darwinist utopia. If that means I don’t participate here, then this is a time to say so. If however you see some value in me maintaining a relationship, please state how you think I can provide value to you. If all I do is provide free entertainment, then that counts for something.

Now, I owe John Harshman a post on common design. So I have some idea about what you guys want to debate me on, and usually stuff I’m not too good at defending and stuff people feel they can publicly trip me up on. Fair enough. I pick some topics I want to talk about, and some topics the TSZ critics want to talk about. Quid pro quo.

What I had in mind is that I post either in my websites or moderately well-trafficked websites like Crev.Info and somehow alert TSZ about something I wrote. I think I can do the alert through sandbox. For a particularly important article, I may create a separate post here at TSZ. However in that case I view that as me requesting a favor of the participants in reading what I have to say, so I will minimize such postings.

PS
This topic also has some relevance on what value the website has to its readers and value to Lizzie’s original vision for TSZ. It is in this larger context that a discussion of what value I can add to TSZ can be discussed. But I think a conversation or at least some thought might be explored as to why people participate here and why and how the website should continue.

PPS
some sample threads I’ve started:

When did nylon-eating proteins actually evolve the ability to eat nylon?

Barry Arrington’s Bullying

For VJ Torley: Christianity’s consistency with Evolutionary Theory, JB Peterson’s Interview

In Slight Defense of Granville Sewell: A. Lehninger, Larry Moran, L. Boltzmann

My presentation at Lipscomb University in front of faculty and deans of several universities available for free online (expense for live attendance is $390)

Reflections of a Former Missionary

PPPS
Fwiw there is now TheSkepticalZone.Wordpress.Com website. I give it to the admins here as a present to do what they wish with it.

Many thanks to Alan Fox and Neil hosting my comments and threads here at TSZ.

117 thoughts on “Working out a gentleman’s agreement between TSZ and my publishing activities”

  1. J-MacJ-Mac

    keiths,

    Good! I was worried…You know…unlike immortal jellyfish, we can’t revert to a younger body when we are experiencing chronic distress over longer periods of time… 😉

  2. dazzdazz

    J-Mac: What? Do you know this for a fact? Or are you just trying to get keiths going?

    Just my understanding of the big bang theory. If all of space was concentrated in the beginning and has been expanding ever since, then everywhere is indeed the center of the universe.

  3. J-MacJ-Mac

    dazz: Just my understanding of the big bang theory. If all of space was concentrated in the beginning and has been expanding ever since, then everywhere is indeed the center of the universe.

    How about the second part of my question?
    how do we know where the beginning of it ( the universe) is?

  4. J-MacJ-Mac

    If all of space was concentrated in the beginning and has been expanding ever since

    Keep this statement in mind for my upcoming OP. It will be essential in my arguments ..;-)

  5. keithskeiths

    J-Mac,

    How about the second part of my question?
    how do we know where the beginning of it ( the universe) is?

    You appear to be under the impression that the universe had a beginning at a particular point within space. That’s incorrect.

    There’s a ton of material available on this topic, both on the Web and in books.

  6. dazzdazz

    J-Mac: How about the second part of my question?
    how do we know where the beginning of it ( the universe) is?

    the answer, for all I know, is everywhere. When space itself expands from an original “point” all the subsequent expanded space IS that original location

  7. GlenDavidson

    J-Mac doesn’t even get the fact that it’s meaningless to ask where the universe begins within the universe.

    Only if it began in some other sort of extra-universal space (possible, I should think) does it make sense to ask where it began. If it did begin in some other space, well, we’re just not able to know.

    That said, what is even the point of his question? Just another stupid gotcha from the clueless?

    Glen Davidson

  8. J-MacJ-Mac

    keiths:
    J-Mac,

    You appear to be under the impression that the universe had a beginning at a particular point within space.That’s incorrect.

    There’s a ton of material available on this topic, both on the Web and in books.

    I don’t recall saying that the universe had a beginning at a particular point in space…

  9. J-MacJ-Mac

    Keiths,

    Is the universe finite or infinite?

    There is a lot of info on the web and books so you should know by now…;-)

  10. MungMung

    J-Mac: What are you referring to? Let us laugh too please!

    keiths once made a big stink out of the fact that I edited one of my posts. So imagine my surprise to discover keiths doing the same thing. Whoever thought that he would criticize in others what he does himself.

  11. J-MacJ-Mac

    Mung: keiths once made a big stink out of the fact that I edited one of my posts. So imagine my surprise to discover keiths doing the same thing. Whoever thought that he would criticize in others what he does himself.

    I edit my comments all the time but I don’t change the actual content… He changed it after you exposed his stinky?

  12. RumraketRumraket

    J-Mac: Thanks. How is the age of the earth dated exactly? Since the earth got formed into a sphere? Since water appeared on it? oxygen etc?

    How Old is the Earth.

    efore analyzing the arguments advanced by creation “scientists” for a very young Earth, I here summarize briefly the evidence that has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.
    … more

    How do we know the Age of the Earth?

  13. J-MacJ-Mac

    Rumraket: How Old is the Earth.

    How do we know the Age of the Earth?

    It’s all based on the assumption, rather then real prove, that the universe is 13.7 billion yo and therefore the Earth must be 4-6 billion yo… give or take…
    However, materialist, like Sean Caroll and others, are tying to escape the 20/20 catch:
    If they continue to claim that the universe had a beginning, they face a problem of extreme entropy–the universe starting highly organized…This doesn’t sit well with their preconceived beliefs of godless/IDless origin of the universe..

    If they sway toward the infinite universe that had not beginning, then how did it escape the entropy? Why is it expanding and accelerating being fine-tuned for life and so on…?

    So, to escape the 20/20 catch, materialists resorted to the fairytale of multiverse even though they admit there is no shred of evidence for it… And who is taking about blind faith?

  14. waltowalto

    Sal, as you have asked for constructive criticism, I have a simple, non-substantive suggestion that I think would vastly improve your posts on TSZ. When you quote somebody here, indicate who it is, and from which post. There is a simple method for this provided by the site: you just click on the “quote” link.

    It is often quite difficult to figure out who wrote the words in blockquoted text that begin your posts. I think this has been mentioned to you before, and I believe you are the only frequent poster here who fails to cite internal sources here. I don’t know why you’ve persisted in that practice.

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply