Alanf said : "I didn't say you were stupid" Alanf said ; "Your remarks are extremely stupid" He claimed that your remarks is stupid. It is just jumping the gun to suggest that he meant you were stupid. I highly doubt that your words here express every part of you and I also doubt that Alan thought or infered that these remarks were everything that you can possibly be, giving it validation for you to conclude that he was calling you yourself, your whole entity, stupid. And he has dealt with that issue in question admirably and in detail. I feel sorry that you only focused at his few and far between insults toward you and your argument.
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus 157 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AlanF
Forscher wrote:
::: I didn't say you were stupid
:: Your remarks are extremely stupid
: ????
You're pushing my patience.
: When you said that my remarks were stupid, by extension, you were saying that I was stupid.
Nope. Daunt answered that charge admirably. I will add my two cents.
People who normally display keen intelligence can sometimes make extremely stupid remarks or arguments. Since I only know you from this board, I can only comment on what you say on this board. And your overall comments -- including ignoring virtually everything I've said and retreating to dumb repetitions of things I've already disproved -- are demonstrably stupid. It may be that you have a Fundamentalist-induced blind spot and are otherwise fairly bright. Fundamentalism demonstrably induces the same kind of braindeadness that JWism does.
: And that was not the only insult you flung at me and Hooberous personally.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .
: We dealt with your points.
No you didn't. You simply ignored them and repeated the claims I had disproved.
The proof is easy: You go right ahead and list the points that I made and your responses to them. If you can't manage it, my point is proved.
: And all you could do in the end was insult us for our trouble.
When someone goes to the trouble that I did in researching the facts of the matter, and finds that a few people completely ignore the facts and dumbly repeat disproved arguments, insults are called for.
: And then you lied when I called you on it as the foregoing quotes showed.
You are the liar. You have every opportunity to prove yourself right by doing as I said above, and listing the points I made and your rebuttals. But based on your performance so far, I'm certain that you won't even attempt it.
: You charged that Dr. Sternberg's actions in publishing were unethical.
No, I demonstrated it.
: We pointed out that and independent government group who investigated his actions came to the conclusion that his actions were NOT unethical.
So what? The lawyer who investigated this is a Bush-administration appointed lawyer who obviously has the same political agenda as have so many others of Bush's political appointees -- to push a right-wing, creationist agenda.
I've pointed this out several times now. You didn't have the moral or intellectual wherewithal to comment on that. Why?
On the other hand, I pointed out that Sternberg's employers -- the Smithsonian staff and the governing council of the Proceedings journal -- directly stated that his actions were unethical. This is the only judgment that counts. This is supported by the fact that many of his fellows have made the same judgment by refusing to work with him. Anyone whose fellow workers refuse to work with for moral reasons obviously has a much better handle on the situation than you, or I, or any politically motivated political appointee.
: Hooberous provided Links to that proof. You brushed that off
Nope. I demonstrated why those links contained half-truths and misrepresentations by pointing out the full truth of the matter -- something that you and hooberus have entirely ignored.
: and repeated the lies that were circulated by Dr. Sternbergs critics.
LOL! I've also pointed out that Sternberg could easily resolve this entire issue by convincing his so-called peer-reviewers to reveal themselves, and for all of them to release all their documentation on what went on between them. But it's transparently obvious why none of them want to do that. It's obvious that Sternberg conspired with Stephen Meyer and other fellow creationists to make an end run around normal editorial ethics by taking advantage of loopholes in the written rules of a tiny, obscure taxonomy journal in order to be able to say that, finally, a pro-ID article had been published in a bona fide peer-reviewed journal -- something that would not have happened if all these guys had acted according to normal professional ethics. Ethics that include the rather obvious (but usually unwritten) rule that if an article has the potential to generate controversy that might embarass or otherwise cause problems for the journal, an editor should get the approval of the full editorial staff. Of course, you and hooberus have entirely failed even to comment on these obvious considerations, much less argue about them.
: I challenged you on the ethics behind your justification for the actions of the scientists at the Smithsonian and the Think Tank of evolutionary fanatics who coordinated the smear campain against Dr. Sternberg. Instead of dealing with that challenge, you choose to insult me personally.
You're becoming as pathological a liar as that pretend-scholar JW apologist who calls himself "scholar" is. Let's examine the exchange:
::: Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.
:: Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality that I've explained several times now: to get a merely unethical government employee fired is virtually impossible, so other means are used. This is standard practice in government. Anyone who doesn't know how this works is naive.
First, if you take my comment that your remarks were stupid as an insult, so be it. Second, I actually demonstrated why your remarks were stupid by referring you to previous posts where I explained the political realities of getting incompetent or unethical employees fired from government positions. Of course, as usual, you ignored all that. Now, do you need me to quote again my explanations of political reality? Or can you manage to reread the thread and find them yourself?
: I think that you are the one on shaky ground here pal, not me.
Fine. You think a lot of other stupid things, too. Your problem now, no longer mine.
: As you said, people can indeed draw their conlusions.
Indeed they can, and it's pretty obvious to me that the few who have commented intelligently on this thread agree with me.
: And if you think that insulting me and Hooberous somehow makes your case strong, go for it pal. I think that you might find folks drawing conclusions about you that you won't like.
I don't care a whit about the opinions of people like you and hooberus. Both of you are now demonstrated liars, and gross hypocrites because of your one-sided presentations of matters, whereas claimed Christians are supposed to love the truth. You fail to deal with almost all the facts you're presented with, and focus on trivialities, half-truths, and disproved claims. Like I've said in other posts, you're pretty typical Fundamentalists.
AlanF
-
Forscher
I said: We dealt with your points.
Alanf said :"No you didn't. You simply ignored them and repeated the claims I had disproved."
Not true Alan, That pretty much describes what you have been doing.
Alanf "You are the liar. You have every opportunity to prove yourself right by doing as I said above, and listing the points I made and your rebuttals. But based on your performance so far, I'm certain that you won't even attempt it.'
I quoted you as follows; :
Alanf said : "I didn't say you were stupid"
Alanf said ; "Your remarks are extremely stupid"
As you said Alan ; "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . ."
You charged that Dr. Sternberg's actions in publishing were unethical.
No, I demonstrated it.
Not true Alan.
: We pointed out that and independent government group who investigated his actions came to the conclusion that his actions were NOT unethical.
So what? The lawyer who investigated this is a Bush-administration appointed lawyer who obviously has the same political agenda as have so many others of Bush's political appointees -- to push a right-wing, creationist agenda.
So anybody who disagrees with your postion is oviously a right-wing fanatic? Come on now Alan, I thought you could do better than that. Or am I mistaken.
On the other hand, I pointed out that Sternberg's employers -- the Smithsonian staff and the governing council of the Proceedings journal -- directly stated that his actions were unethical. This is the only judgment that counts.
Exuse me? Those who conduct a smear campain based on lies are hardly in a position to say what is or is not ehtical. As far as I'm concerned, their judgement has no authority at all.
: I challenged you on the ethics behind your justification for the actions of the scientists at the Smithsonian and the Think Tank of evolutionary fanatics who coordinated the smear campain against Dr. Sternberg. Instead of dealing with that challenge, you choose to insult me personally.
You're becoming as pathological a liar as that pretend-scholar JW apologist who calls himself "scholar" is. Let's examine the exchange:
::: Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.
:: Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality that I've explained several times now: to get a merely unethical government employee fired is virtually impossible, so other means are used. This is standard practice in government. Anyone who doesn't know how this works is naive.
Again, Alan, You didn't address the ethical issues invovled, you simply called my remarks stupid and inplied that I'm naive. That hardly qualifys as a valid rebuttal.
: I think that you are the one on shaky ground here pal, not me.
Fine. You think a lot of other stupid things, too.
You're really on a roll here, Alan. First I say stupid things, next I am becoming a pathological liar, Then i am a right-wing fundamentalist. and now I think stupid things as well? Can't you do anything other than insult the folks you debate with? Apparently not!
Oops! There is one other thing you can do:
Alanf said: "You're pushing my patience.'
Sounds like an inplied threat to me. Care to elaborate?
Forscher -
AlanF
Like I said, Forscher:
:: You go right ahead and list the points that I made and your responses to them. If you can't manage it, my point is proved.
You failed to do this; my point is proved. Most anything else is irrelevant.
:: You're pushing my patience.
: Sounds like an inplied threat to me. Care to elaborate?
Yes. Next time you turn on your TV, expect me to come through the screen and get you.
AlanF
-
Forscher
Yes. Next time you turn on your TV, expect me to come through the screen and get you.
AlanF
ROFLMAOL!!!!
I think you finally figured it out Alan!!!
While I still hold to my contention that the folks at the Smithsonian went over the line, let me tell you a few things about myself that not even many folks who know me know. Since you said that my posts were the only way you have to know me. i think that is only fair ;-)
To start off with, I've mentioned elswhere that I recently finished my Bachelor's degree (better late than never). It's a Batchelor's of Science, though it's in a social science (I did make sure that I had a bit more course work in the natural sciences [Chemistry and Biology] and math than the average bear in those fields gets). I graduated cum laude, so didn't do sloppy work (and I did about 120 of the 150 hrs I have while I was in the borg). Politically, I am actually middle of the road. There is a little test making the rounds of some universities that evaluates one's political leanings. The test scores from 1-100 with 1 being thumping right-wing fundamentalist Christian and 100 being extreme left-wing communist. Both times I've taken the test I scored 66 and 60 respectively which is basically slightly left of middle.
In highschool (oh so many years ago) I was on a debate team that took a state championship, and if you go back and look at our little debate objectively, you'll find that you got had. In fact, you fell pretty neatly into the trap I set for you. About the only thing you didn't do, that it looked like you were going, to do was to kick me off the forum. But I think you finally figured out what was going on.
The problem with folks at both ends of the spectrum (and you are out there on one of those ends Alan, I don't mean that insultingly) is that they are too emotionally wrapped up in the rightness of their beliefs. They tend to look down on those who don't share their beliefs (be honest with youself Alan and look at the tone of your posts on this forum, I think you are intelligent enough to see my point if you look at it objectively) and they take a condescending tone that takes away from the authority of their arguments. Civil, rational debate carrys more authority than the put-down. You need to step back from the emotion and look at your arguments dispassionately.
That is also the flaw in what the folks at the Smithsonian did. Remember that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian. He was employed by the NIH. He merely had access to the collections of the Smithsonian for the research he was doing for the NIH. His editorship of the magazine was an extra-curricular deal (although whether he got any compensation for it or not, I'll admit I don't know) and the magazine's board could remove him at anytime for any reason it wanted. The letter from the investigator pointed that out as being one of the reasons he couldn't pursue the investigation any further. Sternberg's postion on the magazine did not make him an employee of the Smithsonian, so he didn't enjoy the legal protection that you said I naively ignored. So what the Smithsonian folks did was completely unnecessary. It was done simply out of emotion and spite.
Alan, our freedoms of speech were enshrined by our founding fathers because they trusted that those who count could rationally evaluate the ideas that enter the market place of ideas and come to the right decisions. That is why we don't have censorship! Censorship goes hand-in-hand with intolerance and dictatorship. If ID really is as foolish as you materialists say it is, then you have no need to suppress it. Let it be heard, and let it be properly evaluated. Then if it proves lacking, it will go onto the ash-heap of history right along with seven day creationism. That, my friend, is always the best way to deal with it. Doing otherwise makes one look dogmatic and fanatical. That is why liberals have been losing their shirts in recent elections, they come across as left-wing taliban (again, I am not trying to insult anybody here, I am just pointing out the facts).
You may not care that you look fanatical, but you'd be well advised to start caring about that if nothing else. You are entitled to your opinions, please extend others the same curtisies. And treat them just as respectfully as you expect to be treated.
Forscher -
Shining One
>I didn't say you were stupid -- people are free to come to that conclusion on their own or reject it. I said that your remarks were stupid, and then I proceeded to demonstrate it. And of course, by failing to deal with my arguments, you've just reinforced my demonstration.
AlanF
What a load of bull, Alan. You claim that everyone has to answer your typical assertions down to every nuance or 'Alan wins'? LOL, What if they can't win either way? You never admit you are wrong, you constantly apply a rule of law to everyone, when in practice you make the rules 'as you go' for yourself!
Ad hominem, poisoning the well and arrogance are your consistent tactics. People get tired of answering you because you never quit and it takes too much time to fan away your smoke screen.
Rex -
Shining One
Here it is, everyone, read this below and see the arrogance of the liberal, leftist, elitists that we have to deal with! From AlanF:
>So what? The lawyer who investigated this is a Bush-administration appointed lawyer who obviously has the same political agenda as have so many others of Bush's political appointees -- to push a right-wing, creationist agenda.
Bush is a moderate. He is in the 'mainstream'. Observe that Alan promotes the idea that anyone who disagrees with the lib agenda is somehow corrupt. He makes 'Bush' and 'creationists' the issue and not justice.
>I've pointed this out several times now. You didn't have the moral or intellectual wherewithal to comment on that. Why?
There it is again. This is a form of intellectual abuse that models the cult's spiritual abuse....
>On the other hand, I pointed out that Sternberg's employers -- the Smithsonian staff and the governing council of the Proceedings journal -- directly stated that his actions were unethical. This is the only judgment that counts.
Ahhh, so the 'altruistic' staff and council are the 'good guys' here. They defend the truth as the libs see it, never mind the evidence and the later outcome! Here is what Alan mean't, "The Governing Body alone has the ethics and merit needed to judge this matter. Don't listen to apostates who teach lies, it's spiritual pornography".
>This is supported by the fact that many of his fellows have made the same judgment by refusing to work with him. Anyone whose fellow workers refuse to work with for moral reasons obviously has a much better handle on the situation than you, or I, or any politically motivated political appointee.
"Fellows" read that as 'naturalists' (those who have the agenda and corruption). They have no moral ethics when it comes to any heresy that denies naturalist claims. Circular reasoning and shunning will therefore rule the day. Go Watchtower, eh Alan!
Rex -
AlanF
Forscher wrote:
: I think you finally figured it out Alan!!!
Indeed, and now it's painfully obvious to me that you're nothing but a troll. I will suggest to moderators that the usual action towards trolls be taken. Whatever they do, you can be sure that, from today on, I will point out that you're a troll, and many posters will simply ignore you.
: While I still hold to my contention that the folks at the Smithsonian went over the line,
You being a troll, I doubt that you hold to anything besides causing trouble. You're here to rake muck and find pleasure in causing people to spin their wheels.
: let me tell you a few things about myself that not even many folks who know me know. Since you said that my posts were the only way you have to know me. i think that is only fair ;-)
Ok. . .
: To start off with, I've mentioned elswhere that I recently finished my Bachelor's degree (better late than never). It's a Batchelor's of Science, though it's in a social science (I did make sure that I had a bit more course work in the natural sciences [Chemistry and Biology] and math than the average bear in those fields gets). I graduated cum laude, so didn't do sloppy work (and I did about 120 of the 150 hrs I have while I was in the borg).
Wow. You really took some hard course work. At least the equivalent of a degree in Physics, if not more.
: Politically, I am actually middle of the road. There is a little test making the rounds of some universities that evaluates one's political leanings. The test scores from 1-100 with 1 being thumping right-wing fundamentalist Christian and 100 being extreme left-wing communist. Both times I've taken the test I scored 66 and 60 respectively which is basically slightly left of middle.
Ok. . .
: In highschool (oh so many years ago) I was on a debate team that took a state championship,
Where? The State of Utter Stupidity?
: and if you go back and look at our little debate objectively, you'll find that you got had. In fact, you fell pretty neatly into the trap I set for you.
Actually, all you did was to successfully pretend to be a standard braindead Fundamentalist. That doesn't take much talent, but it certainly takes some stamina and a strong stomach.
: About the only thing you didn't do, that it looked like you were going, to do was to kick me off the forum.
I have no particular influence on anything of that sort.
: But I think you finally figured out what was going on.
Not until you actually stated that you're a muckraking troll. I usually assume that people are honest and straightforward about their statements, even when such statements are as braindead as those of hooberus, Shining One and a few other shining examples of Fundamentalist anti-intellectualism.
: The problem with folks at both ends of the spectrum (and you are out there on one of those ends Alan, I don't mean that insultingly)
I take that as a compliment: I'm certainly on the end of the spectrum that respects good science, as opposed to people who don't.
: is that they are too emotionally wrapped up in the rightness of their beliefs.
My "beliefs"? Almost everything I post is or can be backed up by copious source references, so you can hardly call my expressed views mere "beliefs", as if they're something akin to Flat-Earthism or Christian Fundamentalism.
: They tend to look down on those who don't share their beliefs
Let's see now: you think that Flat-Earthists ought to be respected. And you think that Fundamentalists ought to be respected. Have I got that right?
: (be honest with youself Alan and look at the tone of your posts on this forum, I think you are intelligent enough to see my point if you look at it objectively)
There's no question at all that I look down at Flat-Earthists, believers in astrology, Fundamentalists, and a variety of other demonstrably braindead people. So what?
: and they take a condescending tone that takes away from the authority of their arguments.
Only in the mind of the reader who supports the idea being trashed. I suspect that you'd have no problem laughing at amusingly derogatory comments about Flat-Earthists. But the fact that you object to similar comments about equally braindead Fundamentalists indicates that your sympathies lie with them. So you're far from the objective commentator you think you are. Condescending is in the eye of the beholder.
: Civil, rational debate carrys more authority than the put-down. You need to step back from the emotion and look at your arguments dispassionately.
I debate with any number of styles, ranging from extreme objectivity to extreme subjectivity, depending on who is debating and what they've said up to the point I post a response. When it becomes obvious, either quickly or over a period of time, that a debater is incapable of rational argument, or is unwilling to engage in it, but persists in stating a stupid point of view, I tend to drift toward the subjective and the put-downs, since objective debate is obviously no longer an option. In other words, I try not to beat a dead horse, but I also suffer fools badly, especially when such fools are arrogant.
: That is also the flaw in what the folks at the Smithsonian did.
Which claim puts you solidly in the camp of the religious Fundamentalists of whom Richard Sternberg is a part.
: Remember that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian. He was employed by the NIH. He merely had access to the collections of the Smithsonian for the research he was doing for the NIH. His editorship of the magazine was an extra-curricular deal (although whether he got any compensation for it or not, I'll admit I don't know) and the magazine's board could remove him at anytime for any reason it wanted.
I'm well aware of all this. And you're simply reinforcing my claim that Sternberg, having violated normal science ethics and common sense, is getting what he deserves.
: The letter from the investigator
A Bush political appointee. Why do you keep ignoring this extremely pertinent fact?
: pointed that out as being one of the reasons he couldn't pursue the investigation any further.
A bit more to the point: The OSC had no jurisdiction over people who had the special contractual relationship that Sternberg had with the Smithsonian. So Sternberg's going to that office can easily be argued to be yet another breach of ethics.
You want legalism? Go for it!
: Sternberg's postion on the magazine did not make him an employee of the Smithsonian, so he didn't enjoy the legal protection that you said I naively ignored. So what the Smithsonian folks did was completely unnecessary. It was done simply out of emotion and spite.
Not at all. If Sternberg's Smithsonian "employers" -- call them what you will, he worked for and with them -- had had the legal power to completely cut him off from access to the Institution and its resources, you can be sure that they would have. Apparently they did not, for contractual reasons and so forth, and so they did what they could to get rid of a demonstrably lousy worker -- one who would not hesitate to embarass them and the Smithsonian Institution and the loosely associated Proceedings journal staff.
The fact that you've completely failed to address any of these points, despite the fact that you're obviously not stupid and that I've brought them up several times now, proves that you're grossly dishonest -- a fundamental trait of a troll, who comes onto a discussion board with the sole purpose of raking muck.
: Alan, our freedoms of speech were enshrined by our founding fathers because they trusted that those who count could rationally evaluate the ideas that enter the market place of ideas and come to the right decisions.
A right fine sentiment! Unfortunately, when some 59% of the American public figures that the prophecies of Revelation will soon come to pass, it becomes a serious problem deciding just who can be trusted to make the right decisions, wouldn't you say? And when a large percentage of government officials, like John Ashcroft, are able to force their ridiculous beliefs on an entire government arm, wouldn't you say that the irrational among us have taken over?
: That is why we don't have censorship! Censorship goes hand-in-hand with intolerance and dictatorship.
You obviously have no idea of the meaning of censorship.
: If ID really is as foolish as you materialists say it is,
This is absolute proof that you're a Fundamentalist. No one else would say such a thing.
: then you have no need to suppress it.
No one is suppressing ID. On the contrary, ID proponents are going whole hog in publishing all sorts of reading material.
: Let it be heard, and let it be properly evaluated. Then if it proves lacking, it will go onto the ash-heap of history right along with seven day creationism.
That has already happened. Whether you like it or not, the general consensus of scientists who have looked intently at ID is that it is virtually free of real content. Furthermore, they know very well that it's nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt -- as its most prominent supporters freely admit -- to reintroduce conservative Christianity into the mainstream of American life. All you have to do to see that is read the material I referred to in my post on Intelligent Design: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/97367/1.ashx
: That, my friend, is always the best way to deal with it. Doing otherwise makes one look dogmatic and fanatical.
Since this has already been done, it's those who cling to discredited ideas who are dogmatic and fanatical.
: That is why liberals have been losing their shirts in recent elections, they come across as left-wing taliban (again, I am not trying to insult anybody here, I am just pointing out the facts).
Well this certainly gets into the realm of "the opinion page". I would rather say that the recent wins by conservatives (by slim margins, usually, and mainly in rural areas (zowie, doesn't that tell you something?)) reflects the typical braindeadness of people who go in for a soon-to-be-fulfilled Revelation, and all sorts of televangelist claptrap, and the standard assortment of extreme right-wing foolishness.
Of course, it would only take a shift in the attitudes of a few percent of the population of the U.S. -- perhaps as a result of failed agendas of its present, rather braindead leader -- to be able to say that "conservatives are losing their shirts" for whatever reason.
: You may not care that you look fanatical,
I look fanatical only to braindead Fundamentalists and their ilk. Read some supportive posts and you'll see.
: but you'd be well advised to start caring about that if nothing else.
Why? Are they going to come through their TV's at me?
: You are entitled to your opinions, please extend others the same curtisies. And treat them just as respectfully as you expect to be treated.
LOL!
I have no respect for people who believe that the earth is flat. Do you think I should?
I have no respect for people who believe that the universe was created by fiat 6,000 years ago. Do you think I should?
I have no respect for people who engage in snake charming and swallowing poison as a form of Christian worship. Do you think I should?
I have no respect for people who believe in astrology, UFOs, demonology, and host of other silly ideas. Do you think I should?
I have no respect for people who dismiss the findings of modern science as regards the fossil record. Do you think I should?
I have no respect for people who lie about their aims. Do you think I should?
I have no respect for people who claim before one audience that they believe one thing, and claim before another that they believe something quite different. Do you think I should?
Once again, Forscher, as I've said before, and in view of the fact that you've revealed yourself as a muckraking troll, I have no doubt that you won't respond substantively to anything I've written in this post, any more than you've responded substantively to any other post I've made.
I'm finally wondering, just before I hit the Submit button, if you're a true troll, or just someone silly enough to try to act like a troll.
AlanF
-
Forscher
Alanf:
Your answer shows you to be no better than the fundamentalists you claim to abhor. And your threat to smear me as a troll proves it. That, more than anything else proves Hooberus' contention about you folks.
If you bothered to look at my posting outside the topic of evolution, you'd see that your contention that I am a troll is without foundation. As I said, you were had and you can't stand it.
Sadly Yours
Forscher -
Forscher
BYE!
Forscher