Mathgirrl returns? An entire blog is now devoted to complaining about Uncommon Descent …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 26, 2011

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yes. About Uncommon Descent’s moderation policies in detail, and it is hosted by markf, who comments here.

So, if he comments here … does that … ? No, wait, this is the confused, illusory world of the Darwinist. It doesn’t have to make sense.

Hat tip: Our Cannuckian Yankee drew our attention to the continuation of the “overlong” MathGrrl’s thread over there, here, by citing this comment.

Now, are we such hot stuff? Come to think of it, Satan doesn’t like us either, for some reason. And the ID guys are, in the view of a Christian Darwinist, an evil and adulterous generation.

Cannuckian notes,

The blog holds a discussion among people have been banned from commenting on UD for one reason or another. Many of them are angry at UD for having placed them in moderation, and the discussion on that blog is almost exclusively centered around UD’s moderation policy. There’s not much discussion on the merits of either ToE or ID.

I’ve been reading posts there for several weeks, and it appears that some of the comments from markf here are intended to test whether certain things he says will lead to him being moderated. He does not believe that people are moderated due to any particular policy, but based on the emotional whims of the moderators.

Skinny: Given the growing number of people who use and enjoy our service, I don’t feel any need to defend our moderation policies: People who resent them are free to express themselves elsewhere. Sometimes we make mistakes. But we can’t both get out news and comment and run a perpetually sitting grievance committee. Best solution: Write as if you were participating in an online discussion with courteous and intelligent people. Especially if you think you are one.

Cannuckian also observes:

If MG is posting on a blog for former UD posters of dissenting views, then likely she is one of those former posters and is using another name. I got a hint of that when on the other blog, she erroneously posted under the name of one “Patrick,” on 3 recent posts, then after catching herself and saying that she outed herself there, she explained that she was using her father’s laptop, and that markf could decide what he was going to do with her 3 posts under that name; which is interesting, since markf apparently doesn’t censor anything on that blog.

Well one thing that certainly demonstrates, Cannuckian (hey, salut!!), is that many Darwinists are underemployed. Could that be because Darwinism is a useless obstruction to science, but the Darwinists themselves are entitled to be on one public payroll or another?

You know you are living in an Internet world when there are blogs about blogs. Happy reading.

Now back to regular news coverage, like we always do.

Comments

F/N: I have commented for the record in response to the developments over the past couple of days, at MF's blog and as developed elsewhere based on the behaviour at MF's blog. This is my bottomline to the uncivil and vulgar:
I simply ask such: why should I go wading in a cesspit, on the odd chance that here may be a nugget or a pearl in it? Do you imagine that by spewing forth verbal sewage, you will attract those whose mindset is any higher than that of the sort of flies that are attracted to filth?
I trust the message will be heeded.kairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

PPS: As in, evolutionary materialism running true to form, per The Laws, Bk X: __________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality, here seen as if I think I can get away with it why not do it], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >> ___________________ Resemblance to current patterns is not coincidental. The first lesson of history is that we usually refuse to learn from it.kairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

PS: CY, in some cases, we are dealing with people who seem to believe that by tossing out vulgarities and slanderous false accusations, they have adequately answered a case on the merits. They don't even realise they are showing forth exactly the amorality, factional spirit and tendency to impose and tyrannise on others that Plato warned about 2350 years ago. I think they need a bit of critical thinking 101, first of all. Then, they need a visit with good old Sis V. by the wash pipe basin, with her handy soap bar.
brought·up·sy [ bráw tùpsee ] noun Definition: Caribbean good manners: especially in Tobago, good manners indicating that somebody has been brought up well ( informal ) She eh have no broughtupsy.
kairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

CY: Not sure, the issue I have had was not "liberal" politics but Alinski's strategy of subversion, as can be documented here. For those who came in late, Alinsky was a neo-marxist radical who saw cultural and community subversion as the means of communist revolution. I cut my critical thinking eye-teeth on Communists, messianistic charismatic pols and cultists, and have wariness about all three. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

"I also come from a culture where it is — for excellent reason — seen as rudely presumptuous to use someone’s given name as though one were a familiar friend, especially when one is being disrespectful. I think that those who behave like we can see at MF’s blog, should think on that behaviour." And this is perhaps something that distinguishes the American "mystique" from all or most other cultures around the world. We are all too familiar with each other. Young people are no longer taught to address adults as "sir" or "ma'am," well except in the very polite communities of the south, which for me are quite refreshing. I never get bored with southerners. Many have something called "character," which the majority of us have forgotten. But we don't have a polite society in general here in the US. I'm not saying that American's aren't friendly - because they are very much so; but the culture encourages informality and familiarity, and hesitates to stick to any particular social standards for what's considered polite. It's now considered quite acceptable in some social circles here to use profane language - even when children are present, and it 's considered rude to take offense at such language - so anyone who thinks it's degraded merely on grounds of how we greet one another, isn't observing all the dynamics. And these people are all over the internet - because they know that there are still people who don't tolerate this lack of considerate social mores in public. It's a place to either hide out, or to connect with those of like mind and to encourage newbies towards dissent from tradition. The problem is that by coming here, they're actually reinforcing this behavior in the culture at large, and we continue to see increasing manifestations of it escaping the bounds of the internet - because a large number of Americans use the internet, and from this hub, the culture is spread. And occasionally there is a tragedy involving internet behavior escaping to the real culture - teenagers sharing videos online of a peer beatings and rape, etc... Another aspect is the propagandizing of American youth through the educational system. I see examples of this all the time. I had a discussion with a young man the other day online, who made the assumption that talk of commerce and economics is equivalent to politics - and of course, for him, politics is a dirty word. I wonder what Marxist teacher was influencing his understanding of the world. You said something earlier that drives this home for me and I've looked back through your posts from today and it eludes me, but it had to do with liberal politics as being intolerant of authority, while ....... Well, I know what you said, but I can't get the words quite right. Could you help? Anyway, the young man I was speaking to does not realize the underlying politics of his own assumptions; and that is scary. It's not quite brainwashing, but it approaches such - so it's no longer just the cults who are using that tactic. It's apparently right in our schools. He's only one example of this. I find such examples all the time in discussions. Reminds me of CS Lewis's warning form the "Abolition of Man." You think you're getting an English lesson, but it's Materialist Philosophy and Marxist Politics 101 in disguise.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

CY: If they consistently resort to distractive tactics and fallacies of irrelevance (as we see), that is a strong sign that they do not have a serious case on the merits. Complex -- often functionally -- specific information is a common enough observation, with billions of observations of known provenance. It is quantifiable based on reasonable extensions to established approaches to information metrics and mathematical models, as has been shown. And, it is empirically and analytically reliable as a sign of intelligent, choice contingency -- i.e. design -- as key causal factor. So, when we see digitally coded functionally specific and complex info in DNA, the best explanation is design. And, from the work of Venter et al, we can see that a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond where our tech now is, would be a sufficient cause. Ironically, the design inference as such (as has been explicitly and repeatedly pointed out from the first technical design theory work, TMLO in 1984) in the case of cell based life is NOT an inference beyond the cosmos as we observe it, but to an empirically and analytically grounded causal factor. Where there is an inference to design that goes beyond the observed cosmos, that has to do with its beginning at a credible point in the past, and with its fine-tuning that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based, intelligent life. And, in case the import of that is not understood, the issue here is the beginning of the material universe we inhabit. Even, through a multiverse (as in where did the cosmos bakery that bakes up habitable sub cosmi comes from). GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

CY, you are already seeing it. Theirs is a position wrought from worldview, not from evidence.Upright BiPed_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

KF, Yes, I've noticed only too well, which for me is disappointing to say the least. You see, I really do want to hear what the strongest argument they can muster would be. I'm truly interested in such an argument. So far it's difficult to tell if they've even attempted to provide one.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

CY: Notice the agenda: red herrings --> strawmen --> soak and ignite --> Polarise and confuse the issue. What is being discussed, plainly, has little or nothing to do with the merits of the case. And on that, after three months we see no responsiveness to the issues as we have answered on. That objectors want to talk politics and personalities, on slanders and in cases outright vulgar language, instead of addressing the scientific issues [drumbeat repetition of already answered talking points does not count], it all too telling on the actual balance of the case on the merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

KF, but now they're talking about me over at InMod. Oh well. :) I guess I'm a celebrity too. :(CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

F/N: Nope, but you will learn nothing of any positive significance by going there. All you will see is that the objectors are driven by rage, and antipathy, and have no concern for reasonableness, truthfulness, fairness or basic respect. As was already addressed.kairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Good. I didn't think it would last.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

CY: Looks like the blog must have been in violation of Google terms, as it seems to be gone. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

F/N: What an atheistical agenda -- I here respond to the false accusations about an insane religious and political agenda -- looks like, per Plato, in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC (2350 years ago, so we can hardly say we were not warned in good time): __________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >> ___________________ So, now, it is time to deal with the matters of origins science on the merits, instead of the sort of ad hominem laced uncivil turnabout false accusations seen above. And BTW, since my politics has been besmirched by someone who does not know the first thing about me, I will openly confess my political leanings: I am a convinced, small-d democrat, on the conviction that a democratic polity is the safest one for a sane and reasonably educated public. But not a propagandised, Plato's cave mentally enslaved public. As a Caribbean, Caricom and Commonwealth national, I am a small-m monarchist, on the quite simple grounds of history -- never mind, my Grandma's great uncle was unjustly hanged by a kangaroo court set up by an ill-advised governor in 1865 -- and the advantage to the region's tourism industry. (It was quite a boost to Jamaica to have it on BBC news that the Jamaica Regiment was guarding Buckingham Palace, a few years back. Hey mon, dere was even some reggae into it! YEA mon, come down to Ting and Stripe country and have some Jerk Pork or chicken -- great to clear de sinuses. And de beaches are nice, much nicer dan ice on Christmas day.) On matters of public policy, I am convinced that our civilisation is running itself into the ground by fiscal irresponsibility at large and by cutting itself off from its moral-spiritual cultural roots. But, for that I have a lot of company and a lot of history. I am incensed that the name of science is being taken under false pretences to prop up a destructive a priori materialism, but that simply puts me in the company of many outstanding minds across the ages on the amorality and suicidal nature of rampant materialism among cultural elites and the youths who look to such for intellectual leadership. I think that in education, our young people need more of sci and tech, and a bit of critical thinking and exposure to worldview analysis, so they for instance will understand the strengths and limitations of scientific knowledge claims, and will not be so easily gulled by misleading adverts, ideologically loaded web sites, and the like. I think the porn plague -- which seems, sadly, to have been the driving force behind the broadband net -- is a disgrace, and is an outrageous disrespect to and exploitation of womankind. It is C21 high tech prostitution for profit. I also think that the IslamISTS are a menace to us all, starting with their fellow muslims; especially if they ever get their Black Flag armies from Khorasan game going. (Don't know what these are: thank the inept coverage of our media that could not tell why the date of 9/11 was historically significant, being the eve of the 318th anniversary of a pivotal event since memorialised by naming a constellation after Jan Sobieski's shield.) Pretty much as I think the various cults and sects that lie about the fringes of the Christian faith are a disgrace and in some cases a menace. Had a hand in exposing some, myself. I think we need to get serious about truly sustainable development, and stop playing foolish fads with junk economics and junk science. I think we need to focus the web on education, and get serious about the future of our civilisation and world. I almost forgot: I am allergic to charismatic politicians, having had a dose of one in my youth. I refuse to register to vote in my homeland, in protest at a totally corrupt party system there. (I think a lot more good would be done in education.) And, that is my politics. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Wow. I made a big error in one of my last posts that really needs correction. I apologize for any misunderstanding it may have caused: "but part of that challenge is not in the form of reasoned arguments, but attempts to dig into peoples’ privacy and “out” them as was done by KF. I don’t think KF is attempting in any way to hide his identity." it should read: "out" them as was done TO KF.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

KF, I'm glad (not for you personally but for me) that you were the one who first raised the issue about that particularly slanderous blog - which apparently just started today. I was about to place a new post here to direct you to it, and I'm glad you beat me to the punch, 'cause I didn't want to be the bearer of unpleasant news on this, and I was debating with myself whether I should draw attention to it. As always, your concerns are well founded - and any justified emotional response to these issues on your part, (again) as always are well balanced and controlled with reason. I'm thankful that we have you here as one of our teachers. Unfortunately there are those who refuse to be taught, and for that reason, you are viewed as a threat. So it's not surprising. If it had been anybody else interacting with MG and calmly and reasonably correcting, the tactics would have been the same from him towards that other someone. This guy is proud of himself that he found out some personal information about you as if it would somehow contribute significantly to his cause. It hasn't. He is only preparing his own self-destruction. One cannot last too long with that sort of self-absorbed mentality before one's intellectual bowels implode. He's the sort that even a PZ Meyers would probably correct on moral grounds, and I wouldn't be surprised if some (or a majority) of mark's own fellow bloggers are tired of him, If I were on their side I would see him as an embarrassment. So you do well to take it all in stride.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

CY: An excellent example of neighbourly concern. And, thank you for sticking up for me. I am not hiding my identity, but in the first instance, defending my email box from the spammers. I also come from a culture where it is -- for excellent reason -- seen as rudely presumptuous to use someone's given name as though one were a familiar friend, especially when one is being disrespectful. I think that those who behave like we can see at MF's blog, should think on that behaviour. And, as for the sort of behaviour where I was asked to come over and discuss then was subjected to abuse and attempted outing, that speaks volumes for itself. Volumes. None of it to the benefit of those who behave like that, and seem to think they have a right to carry on like that. It will also tell the astute onlooker a lot about the real balance of the case on the merits. But then, that was long since pointed out in the UD Weak Argument Correctives. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Pardon, missed a close to an address.kairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

markf, I think it's great that you have a blog about Uncommon Descent. I would think that you would welcome beeing misrepresented here, as that would give you even more material for your own blog. Here's at leasst one header you might try for a post on this subject: Contrary to a recent claim made at Uncommon Dissent, this Blog, In Moderation (Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent) is not about claims made at the blog Uncommon Descent, nor about it's moderation practices. Sure, that's a mouthful, but it gets the point across, right? Afterwards, send MathGrrl back here. She waas given a chance to guest post here and then ran away to your blog even though she'd not been banned here or put into moderation and now only returns here periodically you make the same repetitious demands and accusations without ever engaging on the issues.Mung_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

F/N: This -- as I pointed out in the still active footnote thread -- is what I am talking about, from an individual who (with the deepest unconscious irony) calls him or herself "the whole truth":
[Condescending diminutive of my name] you’re a delusional, dishonest, hypocritical, pompous, narcissistic dolt. You’re going to get a lot of exposure here: [blog address of an attack blog, communicated to management, UD] Your [homosexual reference] buddies at UD won’t be able to protect you there. The truth about you and your insane religious and political agenda will come out for all to see. Consider yourself ‘outed’.
This person manages to so mangle the truth in the compass of a few words, that it is astonishing. Then, he -- most likely, so let's use this [oh, for the days when this was understood to be generic] -- resorts to utterly unwarranted slanderous false accusations. This person is so full of twisted rage and hate that he thinks that the only reason one could differ with his ideology is because you have to be "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." He seems to imagine that reasonable standards of civility that discipline those who resort to the sort of vile conduct just excerpted, is an improper protection. He thus has lost sight of the reason why we have a premise of mutual respect and civility as the basis for civilised discussion. In short, if one has not learned enough to disagree on a topic and address the merits without resort to unwarranted abuse and false accusation, then that person has disqualified himself from civil discussion. (I recall my 4th grade teacher's solution: washing out the foul mouth with soap. Do we have to go back to that?) My response to him now and forever is, kindly, read the presentation here on origins science, then respond on the merits, point by point, without slander. Further, I think you should know that your assertions above are false, are things you know or should know are false, and so constitute a case of willful deception intended to hurt and harm, i.e. -- as I pointed out and explained in the same thread at no 28 -- they are lies. Such language, I do not lightly use, nor do I use without regret and pain that such needs to be said. But, let me draw your attention to a bit of the scriptural tradition that lies at the foundation of moral thought in our civilisation, on just what "love your neighbour as yourself" calls for:
Leviticus 19:15-18 (Amplified Bible) 15You shall do no injustice in judging a case; you shall not be partial to the poor or show a preference for the mighty, but in righteousness and according to the merits of the case judge your neighbor. 16You shall not go up and down as a dispenser of gossip and scandal among your people, nor shall you [secure yourself by false testimony or by silence and] endanger the life of your neighbor. I am the Lord. 17You shall not hate your brother in your heart; but you shall surely rebuke your neighbor [ESV:"you shall reason frankly with your neighbor," NIV 84: "Rebuke your neighbor frankly," NET: "You must surely reprove your fellow citizen" ], lest you incur sin because of him.(A) 18You shall not take revenge or bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.(B) Cross references: Leviticus 19:17 : Gal 6:1; I John 2:9, 11; 3:15 Leviticus 19:18 : Matt 5:43-46; Rom 12:17, 19
In short, neighbour love INCLUDES frank correction where it is warranted. And, here, I am pointing out how something that is tantamount to lying can slip in by the back door, whether by rage or by being so pre-occupied with one's talking points and rhetorical tactics that one does not see where s/he is falling afoul of duties of care to the truth, to fairness, to respect and civility. On fair comment, MG did so, and on fair comment, the source of the cite above has done so. But, we can turn over a new leaf, and actually think through the matter on the merits. For instance, one might reflect on the significance of Philip Johnson's reply to Sagan-Lewontin style a priori evolutionary materialism:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism [[a red herring led away to a strawman soaked in ad hominems if there ever was one] is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
If you cannot understand that serious, intelligent, thoughtful, educated and qualified people may for good reason have a bit of a problem with such materialist a priorism in the false name of science, then I think it is fair comment to say that it is you who have a problem, not the undersigned. If, having read the IOSE course materials (and let's add the FAQs here [should be linked at UD!] as well as pointing to the definition of ID, the weak argument correctives and glossary top right this and every UD page], you have real problems, ask genuine questions -- please, no more empty drumbeat repetition of demands in the guise of questions, as though serious answers were not long since and repeatedly given. Then, let us see where the balance of the case is on the merits. But if you have no cogent answer on the merits but resort to the sort of nastiness and slander as just excerpted, then that is the strongest possible proof that you are in the grips of angry closed minded indoctrination under the false colours of science, and are acting and reacting out of hostility and projection to others, not common good sense, reasonableness in discussion, or even basic broughtupcy and old fashioned good manners. People who behave like that will poison any serious discussion by dragging red herrings out to strawman distortions and then will soak them in ad hominems and slanders, igniting through incendiary rhetoric. The better to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. Only in such a climate of hostility is ti at all likely to be forgotten that they have made no cogent answer on the merits. Such individuals do not even have the common decency to recognise that privacy is to be respected, and that I have repeatedly explained why I ask that my name not be used in discussions on the Internet -- you have a good enough handle and even initials. But, they have not got enough good manners left to respect even a minimal request in defence of my email box. I can therefore see fully why Barry A said at 2 above:
Option 1: Have a moderation policy, however imperfectly it may be applied. Option 2: Allow our blog to degenerate into a slimy hatefest like Panda’s Thumb. I vote for 1.
And, on the sort of outrageous behaviour I have shown above, I concur. GEM of TKI PS: P, you have given promotion to a scurrilous attack site. Why have you given exposure to the uncivil in their misbehaviour? Is that not a participation in wrongdoing, when you have not corrected them in their wrong?kairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

markf, Even if what you are stating is simply an innocent misunderstanding; which I doubt, but it may be (and when you initially corrected me about my perception of your blog, I was prepared to believe that it was). But now we have this quote above - which I admit I did not clearly read when I was visiting your blog (who reads such things? I want to read the posts). Think of the perception that the above quote from your blog provides. I think I've been fair in pointing these issues out in a calm manner - to me what you're stating here doesn't ring true. The record on that seems clear. The issue of there being complaints about ID on another blog does not phase me one bit. I've encountered complaints and spoofs and insults towards ID elsewhere and in most cases, I ignore them and move on. The issue for me is when our blog appears to be used as a proving ground to test the premise that UD boots dissenters on emotional whims; which on several posts I pointed out that if this were true any number of the perhaps dozens of dissenters who have come here and remained here for years before being moderated, would not have lasted as long. I'm not going to mention any names out of respect for their privacy, but many of us who've been here for a number of years know who they are. I think given MG's behavior over the past several months of repeating the same talking points has gotten her into hot water with many of us, and this behavior is what sparked my inquiry into what is truly going on. This is not the reason I was reading your blog. I initially began reading it after MG pointed out that there was a discussion related to the ongoing issue of her initial question occurring there, and she linked to it here. I was intrigued by all of the complaints because I knew while some of the details regarding someone being moderated might have had some truth to them, there was no truth to the commonly repeated claims that UD intentionally keeps dissenters from being able to fairly voice dissenting views in order trump up the claims of ID. That is simply sheer rubbish spewed from the mouths of people who neither have any data to confirm such claims, but are demonstrating the very reason they were moderated on your own blog. And I'd like to see you try to rationally correct them. You've made an attempt, but they're not buying it. You stated you don't know who MG is. Fine. I doubt if anyone here truly knows who I am apart from things I've already chosen to reveal about myself here. So I believe you - even though by the perception provided by your own blog's title and description, and your own denial here that it is in fact a blog dedicated to such an endeavor, rather than simply a "thread," as you say (which would really be inconsequential except given your denial) could easily lead me to not trust anything you say. However, to give you the benefit of a doubt - I'm prepared to accept that you've decided to host a blog where people are free to slander with impunity anyone who posts here - and that you've chosen not to monitor such reprehensible slander - as an example of your being consistent with your own world view. I should accept that that is the way things are with Darwinists - that is until they do something wrong as Dawkins' own bloggers accused him of several years ago when he decided to change the format of his OWN blog, and was surprised that his bloggers were resorting to slanderous vitriol. Bottom line is, if you don't police your blog, you may end up being the victim of the very vitriol (which often is more than simply words, but threats and violations of your own privacy) - if you don't police it, it's going to get out of control. They've already committed such behaviors against KF when he was invited over there to post. Don't think they won't eventually make you the victim. So it's not really an issue of us against you - but rather a useful observation of how far incivility can go if left unchecked. Keep your blog honest by strongly challenging and/or booting those who believe it is their private platform to say anything they want with impunity. Here at UD opinions and assertions are challenged not only by the moderators but by the bloggers here, and not only towards dissenters, but towards supporters of ID in order that things do not get out of control. I have been the receiver of such correction, and I'm glad that it exists. I personally would not want to post on a blog where there was not any moderation. Thus, I would not want to post on your blog. I would like to share my own challenges to the charges I've already mentioned, but I don't feel that your blog is a safe place to raise those challenges. I think people on your blog are motivated to challenge what I say - which would not be a problem, but part of that challenge is not in the form of reasoned arguments, but attempts to dig into peoples' privacy and "out" them as was done by KF. I don't think KF is attempting in any way to hide his identity. That's not the issue. The issue is that such means are not civil and can lead to witch hunt type behaviors, whereby people begin attempting to control opinion regarding KF's character, and excusing themselves for such means - because the ends justify the means - and KF raised this issue on another thread. I think you've made some attempts to take a middle road on your blog recently and it shows in some of your posts but that is not going to be enough, and the very title and premise of your blog is quite counter to your recent demeanor. At least from my perspective - and I gather the perspectives of many here and elsewhere perhaps. I think it would behoove you to look into these matters and do something about it without delay, and desist from denying here what your blog quite obviously is. Like I said, it's not an issue if that's what you want to talk about over there - that would be none of our concern - just don't allow us to be dragged into it, like you've done, and then deny that it's a big deal. It is a big deal.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

#19 CY - you left out the final paragraph: "Later on I was reprieved and now continue to make comments there. However, I have stuck with the title for this blog" It just a story about how I came by the title. If you look at the contents of the blog you will see it covers a number of topics - many relating to UD - many relating to other things. There is only one thread about UD's moderation policies which I set up because a discussion on the policies had broken out elsewhere (a common occurrence on many blogs) and ironically I wanted to make the case that UD does not have a strategy for suppressing dissent. I recognise it might be easy to make the mistake of thinking my blog was all about UD moderation policies. But I explained, quite politely I think, to Denyse in #3 that it wasn't. Her response was to query whether I was tax-funded and underemployed!markf_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

markf, directly from your "In Moderation" BLOG: "In Moderation Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent (now happily rescinded) Blog About this blog About this blog Why is it called In Moderation ? I enjoy participating in blogs, particularly those that where I disagree with the majority of posts. One such blog is Intelligent Design blogs Uncommon Descent. This blog is notorious for arbitrary censoring and banning of contributors who do not support the party line. For many years I led a charmed life but at one stage I was placed into what those responsible for the blog call moderation. Moderation means that all your comments are inspected before they are published. This can result in a delay of 24 hours and may well mean your comment is not be published at all. I decided this made it no longer worthwhile to comment on UD. So instead I created this blog – hence the title: In Moderation." No, it's not just a thread, and your very words state so.CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Denyse #17 "Is Markf one of those Darwinists whose funding ultimately comes from the taxpayer? Real scientists would be too busy for this. So are real journalists, incidentally, or anyone who has to live in the real world, so I am not pursuing this any further." I am semi-retired - that is why I have time to pursue interests like this. I have never worked for a public sector organisation and I don't pretend to be scientist. I have no doubt you are busy, but you have time to look at my blog and conjecture about how I make a living, but not enough time to even admit, much less correct, a straightforward error in your post. (I didn't change the header of my blog because I rather liked the title independent of ID and also it confuses people if you change the name.)markf_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

From Markf’s blog intro, captured May 26, 2011 (9:53pm EST): “I enjoy participating in blogs, particularly those that where I disagree with the majority of posts. One such blog is Intelligent Design blogs Uncommon Descent. This blog is notorious for arbitrary censoring and banning of contributors who do not support the party line. For many years I led a charmed life but at one stage I was placed into what those responsible for the blog call moderation. Moderation means that all your comments are inspected before they are published. This can result in a delay of 24 hours and may well mean your comment is not be published at all. I decided this made it no longer worthwhile to comment on UD. So instead I created this blog – hence the title: In Moderation. Later on I was reprieved and now continue to make comments there. However, I have stuck with the title for this blog.” Well then, how seriously can be Markf expect to be taken, given that he still comments here and won’t change his blog hedder. Is Markf one of those Darwinists whose funding ultimately comes from the taxpayer? Real scientists would be too busy for this. So are real journalists, incidentally, or anyone who has to live in the real world, so I am not pursuing this any further.O'Leary_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

I dont see any indication at markf’s blog of “celebration” over being placed in moderation.
So markf needs to change the title of his blog. False advertising, and all that.Mung_{May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus - are you referring to this: The IDiots of Intelligent Design http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2011/05/gordon-e-mullings-kairosfocusgem-of-tki.htmlparagwinn_{May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Denyse - out of several posts on markf's blog, there is only one post that specifically addresses UD's moderation policies. Out of curiosity, how many more slurs regarding "darwinists" do you have yet to express? The "underemployed" one is your silliest one yet. Upright Biped - Mathgrrl apparently has a life outside of the internet, as she has mentioned many times before. Mung - I dont see any indication at markf's blog of "celebration" over being placed in moderation. It's a constructive response to what becomes a very frustrating situation for many commenters at UD.paragwinn_{May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Mung: Did you see the notification I received about a new blog, that riffs off attempted outing behaviour etc at MF's blog? REAL civil. NOT GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

As the title of this post is wrong, perhaps you might correct it Denyse?
In Moderation Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent Yeah Denyse, they are not complaining, they are celebrating. And from what MathGrrl says, the folks there are quite civil and there's no reason for them to be banned or moderated by UD. Let me quote:
Many of the people discussing this topic at Mark Frank’s blog are doing so calmly, rationally, and civilly. They have expertise in a broad range of different scientific disciplines.
I'm sure such folks are welcome here at UD. Right mods?Mung_{May 26, 2011
May
05
May
26
26
2011
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply