Someone identified your name and town on this blog, and like a decent person, I deleted it.
See how we can resolve arguments amicably?
I'm so glad you are able to convince people by way of reasoned argument.
Also, I'm fat.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
In which I cry "Uncle" to Joe G
Joe G has taken to physically threatening me ominously mentioning that he can find me in person and will do whatever it takes (Edit, Sept. 9) if I do not stipulate that what he says he meant now is what he meant then. He also knows who I am, and where I work, and he lives not too far from me. He has said, "And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face," and also "I will do whatever it takes to stop it." So, agreed Joe G. You win. What you say you meant now is what you meant then.
Someone identified your name and town on this blog, and like a decent person, I deleted it.
See how we can resolve arguments amicably?
I'm so glad you are able to convince people by way of reasoned argument.
Also, I'm fat.
Someone identified your name and town on this blog, and like a decent person, I deleted it.
See how we can resolve arguments amicably?
I'm so glad you are able to convince people by way of reasoned argument.
Also, I'm fat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Joe often forgets that people can remember things further back than a couple of minutes ago.
Combined with his uniques usage of the English language and nobody ever knows what the hell Joe is talking about, even himself.
Good luck on finding a moment when Joe ever admitted he was wrong about anything.
He said he has made such admissions before, but when asked to provide an example, somehow the thread got derailed. Strange.
Also, I apologize for publishing his name and town on your blog. And Joe, this is not the same as apologizing for publishing your name and town. I should not have done so on Hermagoras's blog without his say-so. However, since you are obviously of the same mold as DaveScot--threatening, belligerent, and have taken the time to publish such info yourself, I don't feel bad disseminating it.
Umm I did not physically threaten anyone.
Now you are a liar.
BTW I doubt clowny knows where I live and there are at least 4 other people within 50 miles of me that have the same first and last names.
Also I was at the BC game yesterday. I think you know what that means... (think location)
No, no threat there. You keep mentioning that we might meet in person, that you're proximate to me. With your mention of the BC game I get the sense that you may have Google mapped me. So you keep mentioning that you'll be near me physically and that you'll do "whatever it takes" to shut me up. And I'm not to take that as a threat?
Joe, I changed "physically threatening me" to "ominously mentioning that he can find me in person and will do whatever it takes." Feel better?
Whatever David.
Only an intellectual coward- a guilty one at that- would take what I said as a threat.
If we met in person I would hand you the material that would demonstrate how wrong you were by pointing to that paper on the expression of genes in rods as some kind of refutation of what I posted.
Are you also threatened by natural selection?
to clowny-
You often remember incorrectly. As a matter of fact it is your MO to immediately twist what I post.
You do that because you too are an intellectual coward and mental midget.
BTW David,
There wasn't anything "ominious" about what I have posted.
If you are going to wrongly verbally push people, then you have to be prepared for the consequences.
IOW grow up...
Joe you dingbat. You could email him the information, or even post it here. But that wouldn't be very threating, would it? Come and meet me, soft Olly. I'll give you lots of stuff to fix.
Rich, you silly man. You should know that when Joe says,
"And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face,"
and
"I will do whatever it takes to stop it,"
plus,
"I was at the BC game yesterday. I think you know what that means... (think location),"
he really means
"I would like please to give you an old edition of a basic anatomy book."
H
Rich, you moron. Why should I re-type some 20 pages of text?
Where do I meet you Rich? I can fix anything...
------------------------------
David,
Obviously the book I have contains more knowledge on the human vision system than you have.
Has our anatomy changed since 2001? I was unaware of any changes.
I am sure the retina still contains rods, cones horizontal cells, bipolar cells, ganglion cells- well you understand, or maybe you don't.
As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys.
However I never did threaten you.
If we went to court and you presented what you have it would get laughed right out of the courtroom.
So come on- tell me- what was the threat?
Meeting me is a threat? No.
You just perceive a threat because you're just a chump and guilty as charged.
Hi Joe. In Moron school, they showed me "cut and paste" and "citations" it was great. I no longer have to "re-type some 20 pages of text".
Come to Chicago if you want to meet me, you big keyboard warrior, you.
*Mwah*
"As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys."
Your boys, your crew, your posse, your homies. The ID Fix-It Squad (Motto: we do whatever it takes)? More "intelligent reasoning" from Joe G.
Hi Joe. In Moron school, they showed me "cut and paste" and "citations" it was great. I no longer have to "re-type some 20 pages of text".
So you cut pages out of a book and pasted them to your computer?
And David you obviously cannot think.
IF I were to do anything Saturday would have been my best opportunity.
That is IF I were really threatening you.
Duh...
Oh, Joe. There may be hope, yet. That was almost funny. AND it wasn't incredibly derivative. Pasted to the computer...now, that wasn't funny but at lest it was different.
I know you got it in you, Joe.
No, Joe. Moron School taught me "cut and paste" was for digital documents and citations were for paper ones.
Isn't that cool!
I asked Joe on his blog: "Should I feel physically or otherwise threatened, Joe?"
Joe's answer: "And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it."
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=5101;p=74424
Oh dear!
David,
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your dishonsty.
The following is the full content of what you quote-mined:
David,
I do not take kindly to being misrepresented.
YOU are the one coming after me with misrepresentations and nonsense.
I will not continue to stand for it.
And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it.
The choice is yours.
Where's the threat?
I don't need to get physical with you in order to stop you. All I need to do is to continue to expose your stupidity.
And if that doesn't work there is always contacting your employer to let themn know what sort of lowlife they have working for them.
Ya see David I have many other options at my disposal. Many...
To Rich,
If I could have found a digital document that was suitable I would have posted it.
I take it that you guys cannot or willnot substantiate your anti-ID position.
Typical- attack IDists but never substantiate your position no matter what.
Thanks Rich,
It's funny, in a sad way, that Rob chooses to quote-mine what I actually stated.
Only a fool would accept a bet with an ananymous poster.
It's also telling that he didn't tell the people on that forum that the anti-ID position is not based on scientific methodology.
Once he admitted to that there is nothing left to wager on...
This is the dictionary definition of a threat:
JoeG: And if that doesn't work there is always contacting your employer to let themn know what sort of lowlife they have working for them.
Ya see David I have many other options at my disposal. Many...
Cue JoeG to give a truly mental-patient look into why this isn't and more importantly NEVER COULD BE a threat.
It's funny, in a sad way, that Rob chooses to quote-mine what I actually stated.
Hi Joe. Good to talk with you again. You've accused me many times of quote-mining, but never once have you shown how the context of any of the quotes changes its apparent meaning. Not once.
Only a fool would accept a bet with an ananymous poster.
It's foolish only if you have something to lose. What do you have to lose, Joe?
It's also telling that he didn't tell the people on that forum that the anti-ID position is not based on scientific methodology.
Of course I didn't tell them that. I didn't tell you that either. I didn't say anything about "the anti-ID position". ID means different things to different people, but if ID is embodied in the arguments put forth by Dembski, Behe, et al, then presumably the anti-ID position would be that those arguments are bunk. Do you see the difference between that position and the position entailed by your statement?
You asked the following:
Can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?
Do you realize that the statement "living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes" is trivially true on purely mathematical grounds, seeing that all processes, deterministic and non, fall under the category of stochastic processes?
So assuming that your intent was "non-design processes" rather than "stochastic processes", do you realize that there is no scientific way to determine that abiogenesis and evolution are solely due to non-design processes? The word "solely" implies an absolute that science doesn't claim to provide, especially in the still largely unknown world of biology. And not even Dembski claims to be able to detect non-design. As he points out, designers can mimic nature.
Do you realize that many anti-IDists are also theists who believe that God has a hand in many things, presumably including evolution? Apparently these anti-IDists disagree with you on what the anti-ID position entails.
Once he admitted to that there is nothing left to wager on...
Of course there is. The two issues that I proposed we bet on are still there, waiting for you to get up the courage to stand behind your statements.
Let me remind you of what they are.
- I claim is that your characterization of CSI that you posted at least three times on ARN and that you sent to Phil Johnson is completely wrong. I claim that Dembski will agree that it's wrong.
- I claim that you were wrong when you said that I "blew it" with my claim that stochastic processes include all non-deterministic and deterministic processes. That is, I claim that wikipedia is wrong to say that deterministic processes are a counterpart to stochastic processes, as they are actually a subset under the technical definition. I claim that Dembski agrees with me on this.
Have I addressed all of your excuses, Joe? Let me know if I missed one.
There you have it. If you respond to this, your response will include more excuses and insults, but no demonstration that you have the courage to put something on the line for your claims.
Joe....again, if arguments made in support of IC are explained through natural means, does this invalidate IC...and if not, why?
Post a Comment